trivia VS tauri

I've used it. :)

https://github.com/guicho271828/trivia/issues/108

You can see it, for instance, in the Trivia library ( https://github.com/guicho271828/trivia/blob/master/level0/impl.lisp ): the macro match0 is a thin wrapper around the function parse-patterns, and this, in turn, calls the function make-pattern-predicate which performs the recursive destructuring of patterns.

I can agree it's not the same, but what's the point? A more interesting disagreement is that I wouldn't say it's a downside (though yes, there are tradeoffs). Especially in Current Year when open source is fashionable and pretty much every language has a package manager to make pulling in or swapping out dependencies pretty easy, I don't see the issue. It's also interesting to note that of all the things Clojure did to "fix" shortcomings of past languages with a more opinionated (and often more correct I'll admit) design philosophy that users are forced to use (even when it's not more correct), infix-math-out-of-the-box wasn't one of them. I don't think that specifically really hurt Clojure adoption. (But of course Clojure is reasonably extensible too so it also has a macro package to get the functionality, though it's more fragile especially around needing spaces because it's not done with reader macros.)

I've brought the library up many times because CL, unlike so many other languages, really lets you extend it. Want a static type system? https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/ Want pattern matching? No need to wait for PEP 636, https://github.com/guicho271828/trivia/ If all that keeps someone from trying CL, or from enjoying it as much as they could because of some frustration or another, due to lacking out of the box, chances are it is available through a library.

Great libraries like trivia, iterate/for/alternative loop libraries, alexandria, and a hundred others. Common Lisp is a general purpose programming language with good support for ffi, working with files, databases, images, audio, etc. Just skim awesome-cl if you haven't. You could argue this doesn't have to do with the language, but a lot of these libraries are so good (or even possible) in part because of language features elisp does not have.

> After much deliberation, the Python Steering Council is happy to announce that we have chosen to accept PEP 634, and its companion PEPs 635 and 636, collectively known as the Pattern Matching PEPs

This is why I'm still enamored with Lisp. One doesn't wait around for the high priests to descent from their lofty towers of much deep pontification and debate with shiny, gold tablets inscribed with how the PEPs may be, on behalf of the plebes. One just adds new language feature themselves, eg. pattern matching[1] and software transactional memory[2].

1. https://github.com/guicho271828/trivia

2. https://github.com/cosmos72/stmx

The source is impressively simple! Good job!

I have been implementing a pattern matcher for scheme based on the Balland pattern optimized, and every time I see pattern matchers for python I always get the feeling that the code you are replacing have to be truly awful for the rather contrived pattern matching syntax to be a net win. Compare any of the python pattern matchers to something like trivia in Common Lisp [0] and you see what I mean.

How do people use the python pattern matchers? I am genuinely curious. One benefit that I see is that you can build patterns at run-time which could be useful.

[0]: https://github.com/guicho271828/trivia/wiki/Type-Based-Destr...

Hi, dear Tauri! Long time no see. I published my first post, Developing a Desktop Application via Rust and NextJS. The Tauri Way almost a year ago. Since then, Tauri has become stronger. I'm happy about that! And now, I am very pleased to make a useful contribution to the Tauri community. As a full-stack developer, I frequently face situations where I need to start a DB-based UI project as fast as possible. It's stressful if I need to start the project from 100% scratch. I prefer to keep some boilerplates on hand, which will save me time and nerves and will be the subject of this article.

Hey Thanks!

Just electron & vite. I might actually migrate off electron, Tauri (https://tauri.app/) seems to be getting more stable and it's gotten great reviews.

I think this is the boilerplate I used though https://github.com/cawa-93/vite-electron-builder.

Well the great thing about WebAssembly is that you can port QT or anything else to be at a layer below -- thanks to WebAssembly Interface Types[0] and the Component Model specification that works underneath that.

To over-simplify, the Component Model manages language interop, and WIT constrains the boundaries with interfaces.

IMO the problem here is defining a 90% solution for most window, tab, button, etc management, then building embeddings in QT, Flutter/Skia, and other lower level engines. Getting a good cross-platform way of doing data passing, triggering re-renders, serializing window state is probably the meat of the interesting work.

On top of that, you really need great UX. This is normally where projects fall short -- why should I use this solution instead of something like Tauri[2] which is excellent or Electron?

[0]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...

[1]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model/blob/main/des...

[2]: https://tauri.app/

Welcome to the 2nd episode of our series “Building with Tauri”, where we chat with developers who build amazing projects and products using Tauri.

Tauri seemed like the "thing" I should switch to because everybody loves Rust (heh), and because it ships significantly smaller apps.

First of all, I will be using npm as my package manager but feel free to use whatever you prefer. Find more info here.

Today I'm talking about Tauri! Do you know all the various tools that allow you to develop native applications starting from web languages? They often need an intermediate compilation, in the middle of which you end up encountering various problems not always transparent and directly solvable with a language mostly detached from native development. On the other hand, there's still the ease of developing attractive and easily usable interfaces, which are more difficult to develop with low level languages.