zigler VS livebook

Bun is an executable as far as I understand. Would it be possible to call Bun code directly from another language with bindings?

For example Erlang (and Elixir) has Native Implemented Functions[0] (NIF) where you can call native code directly from Erlang. Elixir has the zigler[1] project where you can call Zig code directly from Elixir.

Maybe you can see where I'm going with this, but it would be super cool to have the ability to call Javascript code from within Elixir. Especially when it comes to code that should be called on the server and client. I'm the developer of LiveSvelte[2] where we use Node to do SSR but it's quite slow atm, and would be very cool to use Bun for something like this.

In any case Bun is super impressive, keep it up!

[0] https://www.erlang.org/doc/tutorial/nif.html

[1] https://github.com/E-xyza/zigler

[2] https://github.com/woutdp/live_svelte

There's also Zigler, that makes writing NIFs in Zig a breeze: https://github.com/E-xyza/zigler

I admit for a long time this was my primary motivation to learn Rust, but, sadly, I haven't come across problems in years that were CPU bound/where I needed something like Rust... Rustler still looks like a great fit if needed, but, depending on the use case, if I were CPU bound and needed to write my own code/not just use a Rust library, I'd be as or more likely to look at using Zig and Zigler[0], for much faster learning curve, and from what I've read, easier tighter integration into elixir, including I think language server integration. Some discussion here[1] though I forget if I listened to this one or not.

[0]https://github.com/ityonemo/zigler

Thing is, zigler failed in some way for me to build this with NixOs proj and it was fun to create this from scratch.

With this new functionality, we can expect to see some upcoming development of custom formatters for common types of embedded code. The Zigler project already has an issue open for a custom ~Z formatter, and I hope to see some development for a ~H soon.

That looks great, it's a pet peeve of mine that it's difficult to format languages that are encased in another language. Most (all?) editors are only expecting a single "language" in in a file. You have a js file? Must contain only JavaScript!

Unrelated to 1.13 but thanks to the release notes, I now know about Zigler; which looks really neat.

https://github.com/ityonemo/zigler

Not an antipattern for nimble_parsec: https://github.com/ityonemo/zigler/blob/fe845a9fbbfef92da8ab...

Plus think of how much easier that pipe makes it for you to understand what is going on.

To get started you need a running instance of Livebook

LiveBook site

I prefer functional programming with Livebook[1] for this type of thing. Once you run a cell, it can be published right into a web component as well.

[1] - https://livebook.dev

If you're a coder, Livebook might be worth a look too. I certainly have my eyes on it.

Would highly recommend looking at Jose's use of livebook to answer these. It makes testing easier. It's old but still relevant. Video link inside

That's hard to say. Racket is a rather complete language, as is F# and Elixir. And F# and Racket are extremely capable multi-paradigm languages, supporting basically any paradigm. Elixir is a bit more restricted in terms of its paradigms, but that's a feature oftentimes, and it also makes up for it with its process framework and deep VM support from the BEAM.

I would say that the key difference is that F# and Elixir are backed by industry whereas Racket is primarily backed via academia. Thus, the incentives and goals are more aligned for F# and Elixir to be used in industrial settings.

Also, both F# and Elixir gain a lot from their host VMs in the CLR and BEAM. Overall, F# is the cleanest language of the three, as it is easy to write concise imperative, functional, or OOP code and has easy asynchronous facilities. Elixir supports macros, and although Racket's macro system is far more advanced, I don't think it really provides any measurable utility over Elixir's. I would also say that F# and Elixir's documentation is better than Racket's. Racket has a lot of documentation, but it can be a little terse at times. And Elixir definitely has the most active, vibrant, and complete ecosystem of all three languages, as well as job market.

The last thing is that F# and Elixir have extremely good notebook implementations in Polyglot Notebooks (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotne...) and Livebook (https://livebook.dev/), respectively. I would say both of these exceed the standard Python Jupyter notebook, and Racket doesn't have anything like Polyglot Notebooks or Livebook. (As an aside, it's possible for someone to implement a Racket kernel for Polyglot Notebooks, so maybe that's a good side project for me.)

So for me, over time, it has slowly whittled down to F# and Elixir being my two languages that I reach for to handle effectively any project. Racket just doesn't pull me in that direction, and I would say that Racket is a bit too locked to DrRacket. I tried doing some GUI stuff in Racket, and despite it having an already built framework, I have actually found it easier to write my own due to bugs found and the poor performance of Racket Draw.

This looks very similar to LiveBook¹. It is purely Elixir/BEAM based, but is quite polished and seems like a perfect workflow tool that is also able to expose these workflows (simply called livebooks) as web apps that some functional, non-technical person can execute on his/her own.

1: https://livebook.dev/