Earlier quoted context omitted.
The loquaciousness brings two Calvin Coolidge anecdotes to mind, the punchlines to which are: "you lose" and "with the same hen?"
> Once, at a dinner party, the woman sitting next to him said she bet she could get more than two words out of him. Coolidge then famously responded: "You lose.". https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/the-mordant-humor-of... Remind me of: > Brevity is... wit (Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington)
Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
211–220 of 234 posts
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#212https://shakti.com/k/k.zip gives 404 not found
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#213New link https://shakti.com/k.zip
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
For using a heap of libs to compute something that has been done a thousand times? No. For writing a completely new data processing pipeline from scratch? Much, much faster! Array langs have decent performance, but that's not why they are used. They are used because you develop faster for the kind of problem they're good at. People always conflate those two aspects. I use J for scientific research.
Seems weird to switch to develop faster and complain about people conflating the two aspects when this thread is clearly talking about runtime performance, triggered by the benchmark claims: > real-sql(k) is consistently 100 times faster (or more) than redshift, bigquery, snowflake, spark, mongodb, postgres, .. > same data. same queries. same hardware. anyone can run the scripts.
GP here :)
When talking about speed I was rolling the time taken to write the query and get the query to run with the run time. The total speed depends upon both.
In another thread someone pointed out that being a good quant is also about having the best ideas in the first place.
This is just a general comment on the whole comments section in general that I leave here:
We have this weird situation where the general programming population looks at a small group of the most profitable programmers who are thinking about their domain problems in languages that are a mapping or mathematical symbols to a qwerty keyboard (in the old days there were APL keyboards). And the mainstream programmers say that is so weird that it must be wrong and must be a lie and so on.
Occam’s razor says that those profitable programmers wouldn’t be buying K if the same results at lower TCO or better results at a higher price?
In broader data engineering there has been tech like “I use scala!” that are used to gatekeep and recognise the in crowd. But that is in the faceless corporate end of enterprise data engineering where people are not measured in bottom lines.
Sorry for venting :)
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#215Does the page 404 for anyone else? Is this a Europe thing?
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’ve been charging a that amount forever, it’s a crazy ask. But you’ll be happy to hear that the quoted price is about 80% off of the price in 2000, so take advantage of the discount. In 2000 it was $100K/month.
Inflation has been 80% since then, but that doesn't mean it's 80% off. $1000 in 2000 is $1800 today, so a discount of 44%. 80% off would imply it's $5000 today, but prices didn't 5x fortunately. Good joke, though.
Good joke and good follow-through, haha.
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Pushing through until you can think in array languages is well worth it! In my experience one of the top 30 highest ROI mental circuits you can develop. That being said, I'm not convinced that the extremely minimal syntax is essential. I think it can be done another way ;)
I started with J but now prefer K and I'm writing an interpreter for a K-like language in my spare time for fun. I'd say the minimal syntax isn't just a gimmick, because it really does help with mentally chunking phrases/idioms to a degree that's not possible when the same phrases are multiple lines long. Terseness also makes it physically faster to write the same thing, which encourages interactive experimentation m…
Would an array language without the terseness, but with hygienic macros, fit the same niche?
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#218Since this was posted, the source code was changed, and a makefile was added.
The new version requires ARM 64 or Intel 64 with AVX2. It requires clang-13 (clang-14 and later won't work). Gcc doesn't work.
With clang-14, I got build errors. First error: ./a.h:38:30: error: use of unknown builtin ‘__builtin_ia32_pminub256’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
Seems to be related to this LLVM change which removed the above builtin: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117798
When I replaced __builtin_ia32_pminub256 with __builtin_elementwise_min and ditto for max, then it compiles and apparently works.
Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#219Re: Arthur Whitney releases an open-source subset of K with MIT license
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started with J but now prefer K and I'm writing an interpreter for a K-like language in my spare time for fun. I'd say the minimal syntax isn't just a gimmick, because it really does help with mentally chunking phrases/idioms to a degree that's not possible when the same phrases are multiple lines long. Terseness also makes it physically faster to write the same thing, which encourages interactive experimentation m…
Would an array language without the terseness, but with hygienic macros, fit the same niche?
I don't see how it could, the terseness is the point. I'm not sure how a macro system could really help. Did you have a specific idea in mind?