It will also be great to have some comparison on write performance with fsync enabled.
Overall, very interesting project, bookmarked, will definitely follow the development!
71–80 of 101 posts
It will also be great to have some comparison on write performance with fsync enabled.
Overall, very interesting project, bookmarked, will definitely follow the development!
There is so much negativity in these comments! This project is really cool! I really appreciate the trend to rewrite C/C++ libraries in Go. It has always been really frustrating that hacky library wrappers for other languages leave performance and features on the table because they're either incomplete or just too hard to implement in the host language. For most of the languages out there, it is always better to have…
> I really appreciate the trend to rewrite C/C++ libraries in Go If we're going to rewrite libraries which may be used by other applications, which gets deployed on servers, where people will need to update things in the name of security... It would be nice if those libraries weren't statically linked , and thus would need to be rebuilt, pushed and redeployed for every one of their dependent libraries which had a sec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Adding a draconic open source license is an unwise decision AGPLv3 is just a license, it is not "draconic", nor "cancer", (despite what Ballmer wants you to believe), it simply represents an ethical/moral agreement with the ideology of software freedom and since it is their code, they are free to express what they believe via the appropriate license. Nobody is making them do it, nobody is forcing you to use it and…
I think what fortytw2 was trying to say is that the AGPL is not a wise choice for software that wants to gain the most popularity and usage as possible since usage of AGPL licensed software is categorically banned (even more so than GPLV3) by a some of companies. As an aside, one can certainly describe something as draconic(or whatever else) if one views it as such; it's just an opinion.
Why should that be a laudable goal? Not all projects are megalomaniac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Adding a draconic open source license is an unwise decision AGPLv3 is just a license, it is not "draconic", nor "cancer", (despite what Ballmer wants you to believe), it simply represents an ethical/moral agreement with the ideology of software freedom and since it is their code, they are free to express what they believe via the appropriate license. Nobody is making them do it, nobody is forcing you to use it and…
I think what fortytw2 was trying to say is that the AGPL is not a wise choice for software that wants to gain the most popularity and usage as possible since usage of AGPL licensed software is categorically banned (even more so than GPLV3) by a some of companies. As an aside, one can certainly describe something as draconic(or whatever else) if one views it as such; it's just an opinion.
Can you give me any more info on your sources?
There is so much negativity in these comments! This project is really cool! I really appreciate the trend to rewrite C/C++ libraries in Go. It has always been really frustrating that hacky library wrappers for other languages leave performance and features on the table because they're either incomplete or just too hard to implement in the host language. For most of the languages out there, it is always better to have…
> I really appreciate the trend to rewrite C/C++ libraries in Go If we're going to rewrite libraries which may be used by other applications, which gets deployed on servers, where people will need to update things in the name of security... It would be nice if those libraries weren't statically linked , and thus would need to be rebuilt, pushed and redeployed for every one of their dependent libraries which had a sec…
Which is, you will notice, the core of where Go comes from.
Also, you may notice that "server" software is generally moving in this direction very quickly. "Containers" are basically static linking writ large. We're still early in the curve on this but I expect in the next few years we're going to see more people start pointing out that dynamic linking is basically obsolete nowadays (the first few brave souls have already started mumbling it), and even the only putative reason that people keep citing for it being a good idea, the ability to deploy security updates (but not ones that require ABI changes), is fading fast and was less important than people made it out to be anyhow. First, lots of people still basically don't do those updates. Second, even if you deploy the updates you still have to take the service down to restart it. Third, by the time you've instantiated the architecture that lets you manage your dynamic library updates at scale you've also instantiated the architecture you will need to simply rebuild your static-everything containers and redeploy them.
In another ten years I expect it to be simply common knowledge that if you can't completely rebuild and redeploy everything easily for a fix, you're not really operating at a professional level.
off topic: flipping through the dgraph code, I noticed their licensing switch from Apache 2 to AGPLv3, anyone involved around to comment? Adding a draconic open source license is an unwise decision for an early stage database product imo ( https://open.dgraph.io/licensing is a dead link)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is they never will contribute back any modifications upstream. Pick the right license for the project. Apache is for marketshare, gpl is perfect framework for community involvement, agpl is best for control
> agpl is best for control In my personal opinion, AGPL is largely chosen to avoid various cloud providers from profiting significantly from $product, without ever giving back. That's control, but a very specific form of it. I don't personally like AGPLs legalese, it's very very imprecise.
Maybe it just seems imprecise to a layperson because they don't know the well-defined meaning of various legal terms? (... and confuse these with their fuzzy meaning in ordinary language)
There is so much negativity in these comments! This project is really cool! I really appreciate the trend to rewrite C/C++ libraries in Go. It has always been really frustrating that hacky library wrappers for other languages leave performance and features on the table because they're either incomplete or just too hard to implement in the host language. For most of the languages out there, it is always better to have…
Now let somebody run a QuickCheck on it, like they did with LevelDB: http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.github.com/strange...
I'm curious, is it a requirement to have types in order for QuickCheck to make sense? So you know what type of data to hammer a function with for example.
Now let somebody run a QuickCheck on it, like they did with LevelDB: http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.github.com/strange...
All OSS projects should be tested with QuickCheck! I really hope this is a testing system that gets copied by other languages. I'm curious, is it a requirement to have types in order for QuickCheck to make sense? So you know what type of data to hammer a function with for example.