Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JupyterLab is ready for users

blog.jupyter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#161

Post by ng12 »

sinab wrote: post #21

This is really exciting for the team! However I don't think that I am particularly sold on the notebook style of coding.. its possible that I simply haven't found a good use case for it, can anyone suggest an example where the notebook style outperforms a simple script based style? For reference, I use Matlab and Mathematica pretty heavily, and python in a text editor like sublime along with a terminal running ipytho…

It's hugely helpful in the consulting world. We use it all the time for proof-of-concept type work -- it's much easier to present a notebook to a CTO than a bunch of scripts.

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#162

Post by hsjoberg »

tsaoyu wrote: post #87
pmart123 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who used Matlab and Mathematica in college, I'm not sure I'd want to have a closed source solution really take off again at this point. While they provided great products and documentation, they also made it much more difficult to share code/visualizations due to restrictive and expensive licensing. Ultimately, I think the ability to share information easily should help spur scientific advancement.

Mathematica/Python/MATLAB user. Mathematica and MATLAB do both have great documentation and intuitive examples shipped with their product, however, document your own code using their system is surprisingly hard (compared to Sphinx). Jupyter learnt the idea of the notebook from Mathematica (and some other notebook based math software) but the killer point is that it extends itself to more and more general purpose prog…

You could try the SciPy Simulink look-a-like https://www.scilab.org/scilab/gallery/xcos

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#163

Post by f137 »

goerz wrote: post #118
qubex wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your sentiment, but in truth, Mathematica's symbolic algebra capabilities are above and beyond what everything else offers by a wide margin.

For now

For last 20 years at the least, and the gap widens if anything

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#164

Post by dragonwriter »

mirages wrote: post #58

I'd really like 1 thing from those articles. I didn't knew what Jupyter was in first place. So please dear authors when I click on your articles I'd like to have a single sentence somewhere on the landing zone where I can easily figure what we're talking about and not having to read entire paragraphs Thanks,

The source article is a blog entry on the Jupyter project's blog; i don't think its unreasonable to expect that readers of the Jupyter blog have some idea what Jupyter is; its kind of unreasonable to expect every blog entry to repeat that.

Now, readers of HN might not know, and HN's decision (which is, on balance, I think beneficial) to not allow additional supporting commentary besides the title on posts with links to outside articles prevents contextualizing this well for HN readers. (Perhaps allowing one or a small number of supporting links with very brief annotations might be an improvement, but we really do want to avoid Slashdot-style editorializing of submissions, which the current setup does quite efficiently.)

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#165

Post by qacek »

Myrmornis wrote: post #159
qacek wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to editing text files or in notebooks?

I'm interested in any jupyter workflows that allow me to use my text editor and a terminal-based language REPL/shell. In general, - I want to use my text editor to write any non-trivial function/class implementations. - I want any substantial amount of code to be held and version-controlled in regular files of code, not inside JSON. - I want to use the notebook for display (tables, figures, rendered markdown/LaTeX, e…

I see, well you might get a better answer from a Jupyter dev. I use the autoreload extension to automagically pull in my lastest code [1]. It usually works. For your second question you can connect multiple frontends to the same kernel [2].

[1] https://ipython.readthedocs.io/en/stable/config/extensions/a...

[2] https://jupyter-notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/examples/N...

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#166

Post by cag_ii »

minimaxir wrote: post #77
neves wrote: post #37

How does this affects the other environments? Will this be the demise of R Studio?

RStudio has had a server-based semi-collab SKU since before JupyterHub was even in development: https://www.rstudio.com/products/rstudio/

What does "SKU" mean in this context?

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#167

Post by Myrmornis »

qacek wrote: post #165
Myrmornis wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in any jupyter workflows that allow me to use my text editor and a terminal-based language REPL/shell. In general, - I want to use my text editor to write any non-trivial function/class implementations. - I want any substantial amount of code to be held and version-controlled in regular files of code, not inside JSON. - I want to use the notebook for display (tables, figures, rendered markdown/LaTeX, e…

I see, well you might get a better answer from a Jupyter dev. I use the autoreload extension to automagically pull in my lastest code [1]. It usually works. For your second question you can connect multiple frontends to the same kernel [2]. [1] https://ipython.readthedocs.io/en/stable/config/extensions/a... [2] https://jupyter-notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/examples/N...

Thanks, yes I'm somewhat familiar with the story under the current jupyter notebook. E.g. when I'm feeling very energetic, I sometimes manage to come up with the right series of shell invocations to get a notebook running in a browser and a terminal python shell sharing the same kernel via `jupyter console --existing`, with the right python version and virtualenv. Or even have the shell running in emacs, though there's usually something broken somewhere along the way in my setup.

I'm vaguely aware of autoreload but it seemed a bit confusing; there are various similar-sounding alternatives.

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#168

Post by goerz »

f137 wrote: post #163
goerz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now

For last 20 years at the least, and the gap widens if anything

Sure, Mathematica has had a long head start. I don't see the gap widening at all, though. For me, e.g. SymPy (and more specialized algebra systems for e.g. quantum mechanics I've built on top of it) now match and sometimes surpass what I could do with Mathematica. More importantly though, Mathematica's closed nature makes it quite hard to integrate with other systems and workflows (as others have pointed out in this thread). The benefits of the open scientific ecosystem around Jupyter far outweighs the few areas were Mathematica still leads in functionality. This is a subjective assessment, of course.

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#169

Post by afshin »

laserson wrote: post #112

Is it possible to have a notebook and a console using a single, shared kernel?

If you have a notebook open in JupyterLab with a running kernel, you can go to the menu and open File > New > Console.

It will prompt you for what sort of kernel to use, including the ability to use any currently running session.

Re: JupyterLab is ready for users

#170

Post by tda »

teekert wrote: post #28

Loving Jupyter, I use it every day and for sure I will try this out. What I do miss though is good separation between code and data, it is a pain when someone just takes a look at your notebook and it autosaves, the code block counters reset, this alters the file and GIT reports a lot of alterations.

This so much. It is my only real complaint about notebooks. Would be so much nicer if a notebook was split in two files, like `my-notebook.input.ipynb` and `my-notebook.output.ipynb`, where `my-notebook.input.ipynb` would only contain code and be editable with any text editor similar to a .md file (and not some verbose xml). The output would contain all outputs, so that would be easily separated from the input if needed.

I can see the benefits of stuffing everything into a single file, but separating would be so much better IMHO. Version control is too important to mess with. Sometimes I want input and output to be version controlled, sometimes I only want the input. By splitting I can easily do that with simple .gitignore rules.

Post reply on HN