teletype-crdt
teletype-client
Our great sponsors
| teletype-crdt | teletype-client | |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1 | |
| 732 | 212 | |
| - | - | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| over 1 year ago | over 1 year ago | |
| JavaScript | JavaScript | |
| MIT License | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
teletype-crdt
- Teletype: String-wise sequence CRDT powering peer-to-peer collaborative editing
-
5000x Faster CRDTs: An Adventure in Optimization
Cool! It'd be interesting to see those CRDT implementations added to Kevin Jahns' CRDT Benchmarks page[1]. The LogootSplit paper looks interesting. It looks like xray is abandoned, and I'm not sure about teletype. Though teletype's CRDT looks to be entirely implemented in javascript[2]? If the authors are around I'd love to see some benchmarks so we can compare approaches and learn what actually works well.
And I'm not surprised these techniques have been invented before. Realising a tree is an appropriate data structure here is a pretty obvious step if you have a mind for data structures.
To name it, I often find myself feeling defensive when people read my work and respond with a bunch of links to academic papers. Its probably totally unfair and a complete projection from my side, but I hear a voice in my head reword your comment to instead say something awful like: "Cool, but everything you did was done before. Even if they didn't make any of their work practical, usable or good they still published first and you obviously didn't do a good enough literature review if you didn't know that." And I feel an unfair defensiveness arise in me as a result that wants to find excuses to dismiss the work, even if the work might be otherwise interesting.
Its hard to compare their benchmark results because they used synthetic randomized editing traces, which always have different performance profiles than real edits for this stuff. Their own university gathered some great real world data in an earlier study. It would have been much more instructive if that data set was used here. At a glance their RAM usage looks to be about 2 orders of magnitude worse than diamond-types or yjs. And their CPU usage... ?? I can't tell because they have no tables of results. Just some hard to read charts with log scales, so you can't even really eyeball the figures. So its really hard to tell if their work ends up performance-competitive without spending a couple days getting their enterprise style java code running with a better data set. Do you think thats worth doing?
-
Atom Teletype's peer-to-peer connection
1) crdt
teletype-client
-
Atom Teletype's peer-to-peer connection
3) client
What are some alternatives?
crdt-woot - Implementation of collaborative editing algorithm CRDT WOOT.
samples - WebRTC Web demos and samples
automerge - A JSON-like data structure (a CRDT) that can be modified concurrently by different users, and merged again automatically.
diamond-types - The world's fastest CRDT. WIP.
crdt-benchmarks - A collection of CRDT benchmarks
cow-list - Copy-On-Write iterable list
teletype-server - Server-side application that facilitates peer discovery for collaborative editing sessions in Teletype
citrea-model - A CRDT-based collaborative editor engine of letters.yandex.ru (2012, historical)
teletype - Share your workspace with team members and collaborate on code in real time in Atom
dotted-logootsplit - A delta-state block-wise sequence CRDT
editing-traces - Real world text editing traces for benchmarking CRDT and Rope data structures