aboytsov · HackerTrans

aboytsov

no profile record

comments

12 yıl öncediscuss

San Francisco, CA - FULL-TIME, INTERN, VISA

Stuph (https://angel.co/stuph, https://stuph.co) is building its founding team! We are a stealth startup creating a consumer web product fueled by data mining and information extraction. We are well funded and backed by top VCs, and our equity grants are really generous.

Our founder is an ex-googler who created Google Trends. Our team consists of graduates of MIT, Berkeley, Cornell and RPI. Between us we have worked at Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Amazon, and won a Kaggle competition. We love math, algorithms and machine learning.

Do you like functional programming? We're using Clojure for our backend and ClojureScript for our frontend. Knowing either isn't a requirement, but be excited to learn!

We are looking for:

- An experienced engineering lead with excellent system design and architecture skills. Machine learning/information extraction background is highly preferable, as well as experience leading small engineering teams.

- Engineering interns for Fall 2014 who can hit the ground running.

- Design interns for Fall 2014 (please include your portfolio).

Contact: [email protected]

12 yıl öncediscuss

Stuph (https://angel.co/stuph, https://stuph.co) is building its founding team! We are a stealth startup creating a consumer product fueled by data mining and information extraction. We are well funded and backed by top VCs. Our office is located in San Francisco.

Our founder is an ex-googler who created Google Trends. Our team consists of graduates of MIT, Berkeley, Cornell, and top international universities. Between us we have worked at Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Amazon, and won a Kaggle competition. We love math, algorithms and machine learning.

Do you like functional programming? We're using Clojure for our backend and ClojureScript for our frontend. Knowing either isn't a requirement, but be excited to learn!

We are looking for:

- Experienced backend engineer/techlead with excellent system design and architecture skills

- Engineering & design interns for the fall of 2014.

Contact: [email protected]

12 yıl öncediscuss

San Francisco, CA [will relocate/sponsor visa]

Stuph (https://angel.co/stuph) is building its founding team. We're a stealth startup with a very ambitious vision.

Our technology stack is Clojure/ClojureScript, but it's not a prerequisite - you just have to be a very good engineer.

We're looking for:

  - a frontend engineer with strong CS fundamentals
  - a senior engineer with great software design/architecture skills, machine learning and technical leadership experience
  - engineering interns

Please contact me at [email protected]

12 yıl öncediscuss

Stuph is building its founding team (https://angel.co/stuph-inc)

Location: San Francisco, Positions: Senior Software Engineer, Frontend Software Engineer (Web + Mobile), UX designer

We're an early stage, well funded stealth startup with a very ambitious vision. We're building a consumer product fueled by big data.

Current technology stack: Clojure/MongoDB/AngularJS. You'll have a say at what it looks like in the future.

Our product is fascinating, and our hiring bar is sky high.

Write to [email protected]

14 yıl öncediscuss

This is not a cyclic dependency graph!!! This is a syntax for copying vertices, nothing else. It creates a DAG of three vertices and two edges, but uses only one step definition to do so. It automatically replicates the step definition as needed. It could be extremely easy to reproduce in Drake:

  fix_names()
     ...

  _ <- $[in]  [method:fix_names]
  _ <- _      [method:fix_names]
  $[out] <- _ [method:fix_names]

Is there any difference between Bpipe's version and Drake's version that I am failing to see?

> I'm much more interested in getting my job done than being pure about things.

It's funny coming from someone who I have been BEGGING for examples but getting abstract philosophical reasoning in return.

I repeat. Give me an example. So far you haven't given me one example of what Bpipe can do that Drake couldn't do in the same way or better, and yet you continue claiming philosophical differences.

If we concentrate on examples and discuss how they would work, whether there are differences, and what these differences are, I guarantee you, we'll make progress. But then again, I'm repeating myself.

Artem.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Yes, startup times are a pain. As of this morning, Drake now works with Drip, which is a nifty tool to bring down start up times. It spins "backup" JVMs, so next time you run the command, JVM is ready. It works great for interactive environments where at least several seconds pass between runs, but won't do much if you need to run Drake several times per second from an automated script.

Another option is Nailgun, but it has its limitations, too.

None if this is ideal. If you want to write a very simple CLI program, keep this in mind. You may want to stay away from JVM.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Actually, it was in the doc. If you followed the instructions below precisely, just send us your terminal log so that we can see what you're missing.

A nicer way to run Drake

We recommend you "install" Drake in your environment so that you can run it by just typing "drake". Here's a convenience script you can put on your path:

  #!/bin/bash
  java -cp $(dirname $0)/drake.jar drake.core $@

Save that as `drake`, then do `chmod 755 drake`. Move the uberjar to be in the same directory. Now you can just type `drake` to run Drake from anywhere.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Drip now works with Drake! Yes, it's still less than ideal if you're calling Drake hundreds of times from an automated script which you need to run quickly, but for interactive development, it should work just fine:

https://github.com/Factual/drake/wiki/Faster-startup:-Drake-...

14 yıl öncediscuss

You don't have to have Drake.jar in the same folder as the workflow you're trying to execute.

You create the script as described in the documentation, and you put it somewhere on your PATH along with the JAR file. The JAR files has to be in the same directory as the script.

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I'll fix the doc.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Read the "Installation" section, there's "A nicer way to run Drake" subsection. But I would advise to read the whole "Installation" section carefully.

14 yıl öncediscuss

> I'm sorry I don't have time to answer in full.

We're not getting anywhere. Just give me goddamn examples! :) Please! Examples!

> I can see this is really really hard to grok if you're basing everything on the idea of a DAG, and so many tools are that it's very natural to think you couldn't do it any other way.

There is no other way. BPipe is based on the idea of a DAG. You just don't see it.

> In Bpipe the user declares the pipeline order explicitly.

And this is a big mistake. The reason is simple - explicit order is very hard to manage once you have multiple inputs and outputs, and as a consequence, complicated (instead of linear) dependency relationships.

What you don't seem to realize, is that by "declaring the pipeline order explicitly" you create a dependency graph. It's a part of your workflow definition. Your workflow contains the full definition of the dependency graph. Even if it didn't, you would still use it. There is no other way.

This is what I meant when I said - you create your dependency graph in "run". And this is a bad idea.

> dependencies arise as actual commands are executed.

What does it mean exactly? That the first command will somehow tell Bpipe what to run next? If not, then I don't understand this statement at all.

> How is that if it doesn't know about the dependency graph?! Well, it does it "just in time".

It does not matter if you calculate the dependency graph before you run the first command, or as you run the commands. It makes absolutely no difference. The only difference is whether it is computable or not. If you say it's not computable until run-time, please elaborate on that.

> So in this way Bpipe handles dependencies for you.

So far I see that this is very standard and doesn't differ in any way from what Drake or any other tool does. The only thing that differs, and I am repeating myself, is how you define your dependency graph - through input and outputs, or in "run". So far it seems that "run" is quite unfortunate. But please give me examples.

> So in this way Bpipe handles dependencies for you. What it does not do is figure out which order to execute things in. It does them in exactly the order you tell it.

This is a meaningless statement. Drake also executes steps in the order you tell it. The only difference is how you tell it. In Drake, you tell it through specifying a list of steps each step depends on individually (once again, it doesn't matter that filenames are used for that - Drake also supports tags, or it could be some other identifiers). In Bpipe, you tell it in "run", collectively and sequentially. Drake's way supports the whole variety of graphs, while Bpipe's way - only a very limited subset. And for this limited subset, Drake can give you (I think) a syntax just as good if not better than Bpipe's. If you don't quite understand what I'm talking about, give me an example, and I will demonstrate.

> I actually want to control the order of things sometimes.

This is fine, the only question is how. You say Bpipe's way is convenient. I say give me an example and I'll show you that Drake's way is not any less convenient. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, I thought I stressed the importance of examples quite a bit in my previous email and I want to stress it again. Examples, please!

> I want to be able to tell it "do this first, then that, then the next thing" regardless of dependencies.

This statement is self-contradictory. You don't seem to realize that by telling it "do this first, then that" you are defining dependencies. It's fine, and it's OK, and it can be convenient, but you can't say regardless of them.

Again - give me examples! Our conversation is becoming useless without examples.

You did not, but I'll just grab whatever you threw my way:

    fix_names = {
      exec "sed 's/Neverbrown/Evergreen/g' $input > $output"
    }

    extract_evergreen = ...

    run { fix_names + extract_evergreen }

    $ bpipe run pipeline.groovy input.csv

Drake can support this perfectly:

    _ <- $[in]
      exec "sed 's/Neverbrown/Evergreen/g' $INPUT > $OUTPUT"

    $[out] < _
      ........

    $ drake -v out=pipeline.groovy,in=input.csv

Isn't that much nicer? What disadvantages you can see?

Tell me what is it that you would like to do with this script, and I'll tell you a better way to do it in Drake. Is it multiple versions of run that you want to have? Easy. Are you concerned about inserting a step in the middle? Trivial. Tell me why Drake's code is worse, and I'll listen. So far it seems like it's better because it's shorter and more flexible at the same time.

> Having the tool think this stuff up by itself can save you a bit of time but it can lose you a lot because you don't have the ability to really control what's going on.

What exactly are you losing?

I am sorry if I sound irritated. I am. I've just been begging for examples, and you keep talking in abstract, and it would be fine, but you're making a lot of mistakes. So, instead of looking at concrete things that would make my point apparent to you (or the opposite, prove that I'm wrong), I keep pointing to flaws in your reasoning, which frankly, is irrelevant. One picture is worth a thousand words.

I really want your feedback. But please give me examples.

14 yıl öncediscuss

I think, that would be a stretch to say so - in my opinion, it's not a good thing for the sole reason that it doesn't let you opt out of it. And it's not one of those cases when you would want to enforce discipline because renaming a method doesn't have to do with its contents.

14 yıl öncediscuss

...continued from part1. read part1 first!...

> It doesn't solve everything, but I guess the idea is, make it work right for the majority of cases ("sensible defaults") and then offer ways to deal with harder cases ("make simple things easy, hard things possible").

My contention is that while BPipe makes simple things easy, hard things possible, Drake makes both easy and possible. I think I've made some points to that regard, and gave you examples of Drake code which is just as easy to write as the corresponding BPipe's code without compromising on functionality. But to really conclusively prove this, I'm looking forward to more BPipe examples. So far, I haven't seen anything that is simpler (or even shorter) in Bpipe.

> Not at all - if my pipeline has 15 stages then I have 15 commands to name. Those 15 stages might easily create hundreds of outputs though.

When I first read it I thought this is a great point and you're onto something. But as I thought about it more, I realized that it only seems this way.

Here's the thing: if you have 15 stages but hundreds of files, it can mean only two things:

1) The vast majority of those files are leaf files, that is - they are either inputs (with pre-determined names) or outputs, which names you don't really care about (surprisingly). Drake can generate filenames for leaf output files with ease, as they don't affect the dependency graph.

2) The vast majority of those files are not leaves, but it means that the steps either:

2a) pass to each other dozens multiple inputs and outputs, and you have to either give them identifiers (as described above, Drake can do it too) or use positions (unmanageable).

2b) even worse, have a big and complicated dependency graph with much more than 14 edges, in which case your syntax of { a + b + c } will be almost definitely inadequate to describe such a complex thing (15 vertices and several dozens edges).

So, any way you look at it, Drake can do the same thing in the same way or better. Am I missing something?

> Bpipe isn't just not trying to build a graph up front, it really doesn't think there is a graph at all! At least, not an interesting one. The "graph" is a runtime product of the pipeline's execution.

I don't understand it. I'm afraid it doesn't work this way. You can't have the graph as a runtime product of the execution (i.e. after the execution), because it cripples your ability to do partial evaluation of targets. That is, you have to have dependency graph before you can even answer the question - "is target A up-to-date?". If you need to run the workflow to arrive at a conclusion, there's no guarantee how much time it will take. I also believe it unnecessary melds the distinction between the commands and the workflow. If your code needs to care about its dependencies, it can't be used out of context. So, maybe an example?

But if all you need to do is re-run everything every time, then it means you're really doing something trivial, and it also raises the question of why we need a tool like BPipe in the first place.

> An individual pipeline stage can use if / then logic at runtime to decide whether to use a certain input or a different input and that will change the dependency graph.

I don't see how it could work this way. Could you please give me an example along with the explanation of how BPipe will handle it on the control level?

> You have to go back and ask why you care about having the graph up front in the first place, and in fact it turns out you can get nearly everything you want without it.

I'm confused, I think nothing could be further from the truth. The dependency graph specifies what steps depend on what steps. If you don't know it, you don't even know how to start evaluating the workflow, because you don't know which step to build first. I don't understand this statement at all. Could you please elaborate or give me an example?

> By not having the graph you lose some ability to do static analysis on the pipeline, but to have it you are giving up dynamic flexibility.

I need to see an example of this.

> I can't argue with that - but that's sort of the idea: simple things easy, hard things possible. Complicated cases are complicated with every tool.

I don't think having 3 inputs is a very complicated case. And neither is having any dependency graph which is not a linear step1, step2, step3. My point is as soon as you get any of those, BPipe starts to slowly evolve into Drake, with some very weird syntax and inconsistencies (like having "implicit" dependencies in steps' implementations but having to also specify some or all of the dependencies in the "run" statement).

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding BPipe. Maybe some more examples would fix this.

> I guess I'd have to disagree with this, as I really think there are some fundamental differences in approach that go well beyond syntactic sugar.

I don't really see them. And you can't just disagree, you have to provide arguments. :) I understand you can see it differently, but it seems like so far, there could be a Drake workflow for every BPipe example, which uses the same ideas and is equally easy to write (but not necessarily the reverse). This means it all comes down to syntax, no?

Again, I might be misunderstanding BPipe.

I think it's really, really hard to argue abstract concepts. I would very much appreciate some examples. It doesn't even have to be your favorite workflow. Just give me anything. Write something and ask - "how would you put it in Drake?". I think my response would make it clear whether there are syntactic or philosophical differences. We've already established that there are some things BPipe cannot do as well as Drake can. I'd like to see the reverse to be true. Because in this case we can really identify philosophical differences, but if it's the opposite - i.e. Drake can do everything BPipe can with the same ease - than it's not a question of philosophy any more but design.

I'm not trying to attack BPipe. I just want to make the best tool possible, and if we make compromises, I want to make sure they are informed. We must consciously choose some things not to be as easy or possible in Drake for some other greater good. So far, I can't identify any of those things.

Show me. :)

Artem.

P.S. You don't have to give a real world example. I think that would actually unnecessary restrain and slow you down. Just demonstrate a basic concept, a feature, name your steps A, B, C - I don't care what they do. Only if it's something extremely exotic I might ask if there's a real world use-case for this, but I think I can come up with use-cases for pretty much anything. :)

P.P.S. Please include what you do to run the workflow in your examples. I suspect I might have misconceptions about what "run" statement does and how Bpipe resolves dependencies.

P.P.S. I appreciate the dialog as well. Especially since BPipe is your 8th tool. I would like Drake to be your 9th, and better than anything you used before, including Bpipe.

14 yıl öncediscuss

part1

>> The problem with this approach is because figuring out where the files are requires knowledge of the tool inner workings, that can only be acquired from reading the code or documentation > I suppose this is true but it's really not an issue I have in practice. I run the pipeline and it produces (let's say) a .csv file as a result.

It's a good point and I, guess, I didn't mean it's a major issue. Just something which is, I believe, less than an ideal design, because it spreads (de-centralizes) information. For example, if you want to do something with the files outside of your workflow in some shell script, this shell script would contain a filename which a reader would have no idea how you came up with. Again, it's not something to obsess over, just an observation.

> There's really not a huge inconvenience in trying to find the output.

Even if so (highly doubtful in case of, as you say, 200 character filenames), this reasoning only applies to interactive sessions.

> Having the pipeline tool automatically name everything instead of me having to specify it is definitely a win in my case.

It's only true if you have to type less. I'm trying to make a case that you don't have to sacrifice clarity to achieve the same result. I'm trying to show you can win without losing.

> I suspect we're using these tools in very different contexts and that's why we feel differently about this.

That might be true, but we were also trying to come up with a universal tool. That is, we are willing to make sacrifices if not making them means severely limiting the scope of usage. But again, I am tying to show you don't even have to make sacrifices.

> It sounds like you need the output to be well defined (probably because there's some other automated process that then takes the files?)

Sometimes, yes; sometimes only for debugging; sometimes only for convenience. But more importantly, I'm arguing using filenames is just a better way to build the dependency graph regardless of whether you write them themselves or you use some identifiers that result in automatic filename generation. Remember I said Drake could easily do that? The core issue here is not filenames. It's what is the better (easier to read, less to type, easier to understand) way to define the dependency graph.

> You can specify the output file exactly with Bpipe, it's just not something you generally want to do.

Again, it's not the point. If you start specifying filenames exactly with Bpipe (I'm assuming you mean in commands themselves), you would just end up with a very strange beast: you'd have essentially define the dependency graph twice, once indirectly, and once directly. Or at least different dependencies in different ways. It seems like this would just be a total mess. But I'm trying to show even if you want to not care about filenames, Drake's approach is better.

> There's nothing wrong with either one - right tool for the job always wins!

My feeling so far was that it's not like a comparison of C and Python, but rather like a comparison of C and C++. There's absolutely nothing that you can't do in C++ better or at least as well as in C. Of course, I might be wrong, and that's why I would love to see an example workflow which I would then put in Drake and we'll be able to objectively compare.

> It just keeps appending the identifiers: will produce input.fix_names.fix_names.fix_names.csv. So there's no problem with file names stepping on each other, and it'll even be clear from the name that the file got processed 3 times.

First, I don't want to process the file 3 times - I didn't mean call the same method 3 times, I meant use the same code in different parts of the workflow. For example, you have a method to convert data from CSV to JSON, and you use it a dozen times all over the workflow.

Secondly, I think this is pretty bad. The way you described it, it makes filenames situational - i.e. depending on what part of the workflow they're in. Removing one fix_names from the chain could invalidate other fix_names's inputs and outputs, or worse - not invalidate the timestamps, but make such a huge mess, the user won't even know what hit him. Editing the workflow should not require such careful consideration for the tool's inner workings. And if you can afford to re-run the whole thing every time you add or delete the step, you're working on something very, very simple.

> One problem is you do end up with huge file names - by the time it gets though 10 stages it's not uncommon to have gigantic 200 character file names.

I apologize I didn't even realize the filenames carry all their creation history - I thought it was only the case with repeating names. I don't want to be harsh, but I think it's beyond bad. It means any change to the workflow can invalidate everything. This makes BPipe unusable for anything even remotely expensive. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> Absolutely - you can get situations like this.

This is actually pretty common.

from(".xls", ".fix_names.csv", ".extract_evergreens.csv") { exec "combine_stuff.py $input.xls $input1.csv $input2.csv" }

I'm sorry, I tried but I didn't understand this code. Could you please elaborate? What do you mean "glob"? The way I see it, you may glob all you want, but there are just two ways to resolve this: use positional numbers or use some sort of identifiers. If you use positional numbers, it becomes unmanageable. And if you use identifiers, we're back where we started. It doesn't matter if they're filenames or not, what matters is that once you started using identifiers, you can generate the dependency graph yourself, from identifiers. In other words, you've arrived to Drake's model.

...continued in part2...

14 yıl öncediscuss

The project's README file (https://github.com/Factual/drake - scroll down) contains building and running instructions, as well as how to create a simple script to run Drake which you can put on your PATH.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Another problem with BPipe's approach is if you change method's name, you invalidate the existing files. This can be a problem during development, when re-running steps are expensive.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Thank you. Why not? We would love to see it, but we're also not actively using Amazon S3 at the moment. But we would be more than happy to review code contributions.

First of all, you can file a feature request: https://github.com/Factual/drake/issues

Adding a new filesystem to Drake's source is very easy. You just create a filesystem object that implements a bunch of methods for: listing directory, removing file, renaming file and getting file's timestamps, and then put it along with the corresponding prefix in the filesystem map. That's pretty much it. Assuming there's client JAR for Amazon S3, written either in Clojure or in Java, it should be quite simple to do.

Artem.

14 yıl öncediscuss

Thank you very much for your response.

Actually, I don't think there are any philosophical differences, and I'll try to make my case.

> Bpipe absolutely says you don't want to manage the file names.

I think this is too strong a statement as I try to show below.

> So, for example, after coming through the 'fix_names' stage, 'input.csv' will be called 'input.fix_names.csv'.

fix_names is the identifier in this case. There's really not much of a difference whether you use identifiers to come up with filenames, or you use filenames to come up with identifiers. If anything, I think filenames are preferable, because the user doesn't have to be aware of the scheme the tool uses to convert identifiers to filenames. The fact that identifiers are just a little bit shorter (e.g. don't have .txt extension or something) does not overweigh the inconvenience of knowing where the files are. The problem with this approach is because figuring out where the files are requires knowledge of the tool inner workings, that can only be acquired from reading the code or documentation.

There's another problem with these naming conventions, is that if you use the same code in multiple steps, things can become quite confusing. How will BPipe name them? Or is the only way to handle it is to copy-and-paste the code and create another rule?

It seems like not clear enough separation between the code and the filenames can be a source of problems... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

When I compare:

   _ <- contracts.csv
        sed 's/Neverbrown/Evergreen/g' $INPUT > $OUTPUT

    evergreens.csv <- _
        grep Evergreen $INPUT > $OUTPUT

with

   contracts:
        sed 's/Neverbrown/Evergreen/g' $INPUT > $OUTPUT.csv

   evergreens:
        grep Evergreen $INPUT.csv > $OUTPUT.csv

   contracts + evergreens

I strongly prefer the first option, because there's less implicit things going on, and the code is separated clearer from the file naming. Besides, it's even shorter.

> Similarly if there are a lot of inputs and you need the one ending with ".txt" you will write "$input.txt", if you want the second input ending with ".txt" you will write "$input2.txt", and so on.

This can work for very simple workflows with maybe several cases of multiple inputs and outputs, but it's unmanageable when complexity grows.

Imagine a step which takes 3 inputs - one separate, one which is output #2 of a previous step, and one which is output #6 of yet another step. You can't use numbers to resolve that. You will end up coming up with some sort of semantic identifiers, which will almost completely replace BPipe's naming convention. And what's worse, they will be hard-coded in your step's commands, which means you'll have to edit the code if you want to change the filenames, or re-use this step's implementation somewhere else.

> When you start having hundreds or thousands of outputs naming them quickly goes from being something you want to do to a chore that drives you completely crazy and you want a tool to help you with.

I'm not sure I agree here. Here's how I see it:

Instead of naming hundreds of files, you have to name hundreds of methods (commands). Yes, you don't have to repeat the filenames to create dependencies, but you have to repeat the method names (in "contracts + evergreens"), and in a way which quickly breaches the boundaries of readability.

This doesn't work for complicated workflows, and for simple ones, I would prefer positional linking rather than comping up with names, like in the example I provided above.

There's nothing that prevents Drake from coming up with filenames from more abstract identifiers. We could come up with some syntax where you'd just give an identifier (say, "~contracts"), and we'll take care of the file location and name, just like BPipe does. The major difference is not this. The major difference is that we think you need to identify inputs and outputs to build the graph, and the method name is insignificant until you want code re-use, and BPipe seems to take the opposite position - that you need to give method names, and then use a separate expression to build the graph.

I think I provided at least a few strong arguments why BPipe is wrong on this one. I would really love to hear your further thoughts.

> As I touch on above, it's really not too hard. Bpipe gives you ways to query for inputs in a flexible manner to get the ones you want.

I'm sorry I didn't understand neither this nor the example you provided. Could you please elaborate? In the example you provided you identify different outputs by adding a number to their names. Is that how subsequent steps are supposed to refer to them as inputs - by the positional output number from the step that used to generate them?

> I'd argue that it's more than syntactic sugar, though - it's a different philosophy about what problems are important and what the tool should be helping you with.

I appreciate your opinion. But the way I see it is this:

1) As far as different philosophies go, I find BPipe's one to be a bit problematic for complicated cases.

2) And for simple cases, it all comes down to syntactic sugar.

I understand it's hard to argue an abstract, so I'll tell you what. Give me an example of a BPipe workflow that you particularly like, and I'll put it in Drake. I might need to invent some Drake features on the fly, but it's a good thing. This is what these discussions are for. I'll try to show you that there's no philosophical difference, and Drake has a more flexible approach overall. I am looking forward to this challenge, because your opinion is important to me.

Thank you!

Artem.

14 yıl öncediscuss

To be honest with you, no, we didn't seriously consider it. Maybe we should have. I do not know if ClojureScript would be able to work with all the dependencies we have (for example, Hadoop client library to talk to HDFS). But it's a good point nevertheless. I'll mention it in https://github.com/Factual/drake/issues/1.

Thanks!

14 yıl öncediscuss

It's a good point, and I agree it might not be the top priority, but I also understand the frustration. I, too, find 5s start up file rather irritating especially when I make errors in the workflow file, or didn't specify targets correctly. So, we are in search of ideas on how to fix it.