windmill VS llvm-project

Look very similar to the script builder portion of https://github.com/windmill-labs/windmill, but not open-source, not self-hostable, and without open-source integrations (https://hub.windmill.dev/)

disclaimer: I'm founder of ^

If you need a job queue on Postgres, https://windmill.dev provide an all-integrated developer platform with a Pg queue at its core that support jobs defined in python/typescript/sql

windmill.dev - Windmill is an open-source developer platform to quickly build production-grade multi-step automation and internal apps from minimal Python and Typescript scripts. As a free user, you can create and be a member of at most three non-premium workspaces.

For an alternative to airplane.dev, you can checkout Windmill.

https://github.com/windmill-labs/windmill

"Open-source developer infrastructure for internal tools (APIs, background jobs, workflows and UIs). Self-hostable alternative to Airplane, Pipedream, Superblocks and a simplified Temporal with autogenerated UIsm and custom UIs to trigger workflows and scripts as internal apps.

Scripts are turned into sharable UIs automatically, and can be composed together into flows or used into richer apps built with low-code. Supported script languages supported are: Python, TypeScript, Go, Bash, SQL, and GraphQL. "

If you search HN, you'll find the creator of Windmill comment on comparisons to airplane.dev:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://windmill.dev is a self-hostable OSS alternative to pipedream

(disclaimer: I'm founder)

I'm genuinely curious what server-side stuff on BC you are referring to. That may have been something added after our assessment. The way I'd generally approach something like that for any of the platforms would be using an external low/no code solution to process webhook data. But it would depend heavily on the use case. For a more developer friendly option I've been really impressed by windmill.dev. We use a mix of n8n and windmill for various needs.

Yes it goes in that direction, however note that you can already do this in a not too hard way.

Our openflow spec is both open-source and has a full openapi definition: https://github.com/windmill-labs/windmill/blob/main/openflow...

you can use that to generate client sdks in any languages and build your own dag with it. That's what one of our customer did building a reactflow to openflow library: https://github.com/Devessier/reactflow-to-windmill

It's not as good as the decorator way but we move fast and if you still have interest for it we could prioritize it (and ask for feedbacks :))

We have built an open-source generic workflow engine to run arbitrary scripts (https://windmill.dev) with a vscode extension to build the yaml using a low-code builder and each individual script in their dedicated python/ts files so you get your full editor assistants https://youtu.be/aSOF6AzyDr8?t=116

One of the area we are expanding next is a github app so you get exactly the same UX as github actions but running windmill workflows on your windmill workers.

See

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/88344

https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/flang-new-how-to-forc...

You can never mistake type_declaration with an identifier, otherwise the program will not work. Aside from that constraint, you are free to name them whatever you like, there is no one standard, and each parser has it own naming conventions, unless you are planning to use something like LLVM. If you are interested, you can see examples of naming in different language parsers in the AST Explorer.

> There is one way to make the LLVM JIT compiler more usable, but I fear it’s going to take years to be implemented: being able to cache and reuse compiled queries.

Actually, it's implemented in LLVM for years :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a98546ebcd2a692e...

> It's true, this was a CVE in Rust and not a CVE in C++, but only because C++ doesn't regard the issue as a problem at all. The problem definitely exists in C++, but it's not acknowledged as a problem, let alone fixed.

Can you find a link that substantiates your claim? You're throwing out some heavy accusations here that don't seem to match reality at all.

Case in point, this was fixed in both major C++ libraries:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ebf6175464768983a2d...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4f67a909902d8ab9...

So what C++ community refused to regard this as an issue and refused to fix it? Where is your supporting evidence for your claims?

For everyone else looking for the magic in this almost 7k lines monster, look at line 6610 [1].

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/8ec28af8eaff5acd0d...

Through value tracking. It's actually LLVM that does this, GCC probably does it as well, so in theory explicit bounds checks in regular C code would also be removed by the compiler.

How it works exactly I don't know, and apparently it's so complex that it requires over 9000 lines of C++ to express:

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Anal...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/flang/docs/F2...

• Go • Rust • Lua • pure C (sans C++) • 6502 assembly • WebAssembly • compiler backends, like LLVM or Cranelift

Compilers also may even spill data to stack from memory, even when the original location is still available, as can be seen in this issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53348

I vaguely remember that spilling like this could allow high-end CPUs to use something similar to register renaming, i.e. stack locations like [rsp + 96] could be stay in a physical registers during function execution (high-end CPUs often have more physical registers, than logical ones), but could find good references whether such optimization exists in practice or not.

Unfortunately, I think more often than note it causes performance regressions and in some cases it may even cause unnecessary stack spilling of sensitive data: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88930#issuecomment-...