191–200 of 358 posts
You don't have to settle for the command line. It works with Jupyter, which seems to be the most pleasant way to use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just answering your honest question: >What programming language stack do you use that’s closed source? Verilog/System Verilog (generally HDL/FPGA/ASIC design/verification). Yes, it's a niche (some may even say it's not software, it's hardware, but it is indeed a large code base that requires a software engineering environment/toolchain/practices/etc...). Again, just answering your questi…
I think hardware stuff is an expected exception because there are basically no open-source architectures.
But the IC/hardware toolchain is a separate issue from the design itself. It's largely proprietary, probably due to the niche market and large R&D costs involved in some of the tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kdb is a very niche product that has open source alternatives that are made use of by the rest of the software industry outside of FinTech. It's not bad, it's just not what the market wants to use because it's a closed box. Wikipedia has an article on Time series databases and they contain a short list of popular TSDBs [0]. On that list 11 are libre-software to some degree and 4 are commercial. Relational TSDBs are n…
Unfortunately, there are no open source alternatives to kdb+. Effortlessly handling hundreds of terabytes of data on a single machine, while consisting of only a 300 kB (yes, kilobytes)... Nobody even came close. Market adoption could be better, but the license costs around $100,000/year (probably the most expensive software per kilobyte). Fintech can afford it, other industries can’t.
They have a an SQLish interface, that allows non-specialists to get work done, but anything serious needs to move beyond that.
I haven't used it in a few years, but queries had to be carefully optimized -- swapping the order in a where clause could cause order of magnitude differences in performance. Also it is append-optimized. If you need to update or insert data, it is a nontrivial exercise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by "it doesn't run any Lisp code"? For what it's worth, both Wikipedia and the official Clojure website call Clojure a dialect of Lisp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language) , https://clojure.org/ )
Take Lisp code written in the last 50 years and odds are that Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp or Scheme can run it with zero/minimal/moderate modifications. Clojure needs a total and complete rewrite which doesn't only affect the syntax but program logic. Thus Clojure does not run Lisp code. How can it be a Lisp when it does not run Lisp code?
You're welcome to draw the line wherever you want, maybe for you conses are mandatory in a Lisp language but I don't really understand what you hope to gain from this discussion. I might as well say "tail call optimization is absolutely mandatory in any self-respecting Lisp, therefore CL isn't a proper Lisp dialect".
This is effectively the same level of discussion as a Java programmer saying that C++ isn't "true OOP" or an Haskell enthusiast claiming that Scheme isn't a true functional language because it allows side-effects. It's just silly gatekeeping that doesn't lead anywhere interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But that’s completely at odds with how most software engineers work these days. Most software is grounded in an open source development and deployment tool chain. Imagine saying this with a straight face. Maybe in web development, but the vast majority of programmers are using closed source tools to produce closed source software. You're either thinking of a tiny picture vs the whole picture (web devs vs programming…
I’m open to being wrong, but my domain is not and has not been web apps. It’s mostly been things like satellite antenna control software, quantum computers, scientific computing, and AI. Each of those domains, in my experience, has been firmly grounded in open source. (It does not mean, of course, that the end product is open source.) I recognize there are some domains that are steeped in closed source solutions with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can be done. If no license allows you to what you want, get your lawyer/s to draft one for you
Open source has a clear definition. The kind of license you want is not compatible with that. It would be a valid software license, but not open source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can be done. If no license allows you to what you want, get your lawyer/s to draft one for you
Open source has a clear definition. The kind of license you want is not compatible with that. It would be a valid software license, but not open source.
> Why Aren’t You Using Our Technology? It’s not open source. Even if the engine is “free”, I don’t want to build an open source product with it and hope to be granted a “free production license.” If I build something on my own time I don’t want to ask my employer to purchase a “production license” as soon as it becomes useful. Wolfram believes that mathematics software (or “computational knowledge” or whatever he cal…
> It’s not open source. WL is essentially just a bunch of useful functions collected into a common platform, and I think we already have the open source equivalent of that - it's called npm, and it's great, but it is very different, and it has some pretty big downsides which are the direct result of it being an open source project rather than a commercial product. I don't know if WL is as elegant or high-quality or d…
Just a quick reminder; my MIT licensed open source project Resin [0] does pretty much of what WA does. It's free today and it will be free tomorrow. Free to use in production, to clone, fork, tear apart. Like WA - it's a linguistic engine - it has a query language - there is a cloud you can use [1] if you don't want to host it on-premise - it has high level API's for creating language models from JSON documents (or i…
Regardless of similarity to Wolfram products, this looks cool. I feel like I could be in the target audience, but the documentation is quite sparse. I feel like > Your data ends up being represented as nodes in a graph that can be traversed by comparing a query (which is also represented as a vector) to nodes from the graph and use their cosine angle as a guide as to what node to traverse to next and when to stop. Co…
The documentation is very incomplete. I'll fix that ASAP.
Disclaimer: Wolfram employee here. Opinions here are mine, and not the company's. Having used the Wolfram Language and Mathematica professionally for over seven years I think this is much cooler than the people who greenlighted this within the company realize. If there is one thing I love about the Wolfram Language is how fast it is to prototype something with it. Given the scope of the language (or what you call sta…