41–50 of 88 posts
This is neat. Anyone want to add support for TreeBase/Tree Notation? http://treenotation.org/treeBase/ . It's currently on the backburner to query TreeBases in SQL without having first to convert the TreeBase to sql. Seems like it would be relatively straightforward to use this to do that.
Most of your recent comments link to your project's website. Please stop with the abusive promotion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't find it abusive, the comments seem relevant and it's a open source library.
FWIW this guy does actually spam his project a lot. I recognize him from reddit where people have also complained about his constant promotion of this project.
Can you point to a single place where I posted about TreeBase or TreeNotation that wasn't relevant to the context? I don't think you'll find a single example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have real problems with TreeNotation advertising itself as "a software-less database system". It's basically abusing your filesystem to store a tree data structure and using git to handle concurrent updates. That's great, except for the part where they ask "does it scale"; and the answer is yes, but should be no. A database is so much more than just a schema and validator, but this is being advertised as a database…
Thanks for the feedback! I did not expect that confusion. I just made an update (and will push shortly) to be more explicit that it scales for collaborative knowledge bases . But I'm not talking about something like real time transactional DBs, etc. I have not used TreeBase for anything other than collaborative knowledge bases. Haven't even thought much beyond that. Thanks for letting me know that wasn't clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the feedback! I did not expect that confusion. I just made an update (and will push shortly) to be more explicit that it scales for collaborative knowledge bases . But I'm not talking about something like real time transactional DBs, etc. I have not used TreeBase for anything other than collaborative knowledge bases. Haven't even thought much beyond that. Thanks for letting me know that wasn't clear.
There's nothing special about collaborative knowledge bases that make them immune from scaling problems. You can't use TreeNotation to run Wikipedia. Fundamentally it isn't a database, period. It's a schema for files in a file system.
This is false. It is both.
A database is merely an application that provides an interface to structured data on disk.
I know a thing or two about databases, having contributed to a few of the larger open source ones.
There's a lot more to TreeBase than is on the website right now. As the website says "We have been using TreeBase for over 2 years in systems with millions of rows and dozens of collaborators." For all you know, you may have actually used a website that is powered by TreeBase (well, a TreeBase application written in a different host language, but the file system semantics are the same).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the PartiQL compiler makes heavy use of closures, each of which becomes a class, so the first time a query executes the JVM has to load a few dozen classes--this probably explains the 86ms more than a lack of JIT optimizations alone.
each of which becomes a class Wasn't part of the whole thing with lambdas that they don't all become individual classes?
Like in other OO languages, every value in Java is an object [1], and every object has a class.
[1] Except for the 8 primitive types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
each of which becomes a class Wasn't part of the whole thing with lambdas that they don't all become individual classes?
No, the point of lambdas is you didn't have to write the full class syntax. Like in other OO languages, every value in Java is an object [1], and every object has a class. [1] Except for the 8 primitive types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the point of lambdas is you didn't have to write the full class syntax. Like in other OO languages, every value in Java is an object [1], and every object has a class. [1] Except for the 8 primitive types.
I didn't say that was 'the point of lambdas'. But the lambdas implementation, as far as I know, doesn't make new classes. It's not syntactic sugar around anon/inner classes.
At runtime, LambdaMetafactory creates function objects that implement the require interfaces.
The objects are instances of java.lang.Object, including returning a value for getClass() that is the same as for any other other lambda objects created from same expression.
Not compile time classes, but runtime instances of classes.
Uses different machinery with keeping compatibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing special about collaborative knowledge bases that make them immune from scaling problems. You can't use TreeNotation to run Wikipedia. Fundamentally it isn't a database, period. It's a schema for files in a file system.
> Fundamentally it isn't a database, period. It's a schema for files in a file system. This is false. It is both. A database is merely an application that provides an interface to structured data on disk. I know a thing or two about databases, having contributed to a few of the larger open source ones. There's a lot more to TreeBase than is on the website right now. As the website says "We have been using TreeBase fo…