Does that not also suggest (cautious, make sure we back it up with our actions) optimism about this acquisition? We're not breaking up the band. These tools will be in the same hands as before. And it would be extremely value-destructive to bring in a team like ours and then undermine what made us valued and successful.
Just to be clear: I think uv and the other Astral projects will probably be just fine! I don't really think this the end at all.
I was just trying to explain why people are so upset by the perceived change of hands; that perception isn't perfect of course, it's a mixture of fear, honesty, skepticism, truth etc. I think some people here are just being absurd (e.g. the idea that community projects are magically more sustainable by the fact they are community projects is literally just wishcasting with a mix of Red-Dots-On-Plane syndrome). But I can definitely understand the source of it.
The parser is not the hard part. The hard part is doing something useful with the parse trees. They even chose "oh is that all?" and a picture of a piece of cake as the teaser image for my Strange Loop talk on this subject!
Being in this industry for over 20 years probably jaded me a lot, I understand that's the plan but it's almost always the plan (or publicly stated as).
Only time will tell if it will not affect the ecosystem negatively, best of luck though, I really hope this time is different™.
I've been in the industry for similarly long, and I understand and sympathize with this view. All I can say is that _right now_, we're committed to maintaining our open-source tools with the same level of effort, care, and attention to detail as before. That does not change with this acquisition. No one can guarantee how motives, incentives, and decisions might change years down the line. But that's why we bake optionality into it with the tools being permissively licensed. That makes the worst-case scenarios have the shape of "fork and move on", and not "software disappears forever".
I personally get a lot of confidence in the permissive licensing (both in the current code quality, and the "backup plan" that I can keep using it in the event of an Astralnomical emergency); thank you for being open source!
> No one can guarantee how motives, incentives, and decisions might change years down the line. But that's why we bake optionality into it with the tools being permissively licensed. That makes the worst-case scenarios have the shape of "fork and move on", and not "software disappears forever".
> My understand is Astral's focus for ty has been on making a good experience for common issues, whereas they plan for very high compliance but difficult or rare edge cases aren't are prioritized.
I would say that's true in terms of prioritization (there's a lot to do!), but not in terms of the final user experience that we are aiming for. We're not planning on punting on anything in the conformance suite, for instance.
If you run a type checker like ty or pyright they're not decorative — you'll get clear diagnostics for that particular example [1], and any other type errors you might have. You can set up CI so that e.g. blocks PRs from being merged, just like any other test failure.
If you mean types not being checked at runtime, the consensus is that most users don't want to pay the cost of the checks every time the program is run. It's more cost-effective to do those checks at development/test/CI time using a type checker, as described above. But if you _do_ want that, you can opt in to that using something like beartype [2].
There have been some early proposals to add something like that, but none of them have made it very far yet. As you might imagine, it's a hard problem!
There was a hang/performance bug [1, 2] that was reported just after the beta release, which we've since fixed [3]. You might try seeing if we get through your entire project now?
(And as an aside, there _is_ a verbose mode: if you add `-vv` you'll get DEBUG-level log messages printing out the name of each file as we start to check it, and you can set TY_MAX_PARALLELISM=1 in your env to make it very clear which file is causing the hang. That's how we debug these kinds of issues when they're reported to us.)
Yes, we love TypeForm! We plan to support it as soon as the PEP for it lands. Under the covers, we already support much of what's needed, and use it for some of our special-cased functions like `ty_extensions.is_equivalent_to` [1,2]. TypeForm proper has been lower on the priority list mostly because we have a large enough backlog as it is, and that lets us wait to make sure there aren't any last-minute changes to the syntax.
Stepping away from Forth in particular, one of the benefits of a stack-based / concatenative language is that it's easy to implement on constrained hardware. uxn [1] is a great example of that.
And shameless self-promotion, if you're interested in how these kinds of languages compare with more traditional named-based languages, with more theoretical constructs like the lambda calculus and combinatory logic, and with gadgets like a PyBadge — well you're in luck! I gave a talk about exactly that at the final Strange Loop [2].
This is long winded, but maybe you have some thoughts here.
I've been building a DOM-builder API recently in Rust. The existing options (there are many) tend to use textual templating, which can't reason well about anything, or basic macros, which never support indentation. I wanted something that was just code, where I'd be in full control on the indentation (or lack thereof) programmatically. The closest equivalent is Python's Dominate [1], though its indentation mechanisms are buggy.
So I built a system using the traditional tree where Nodes own other Nodes at random addresses, and I built a renderer that renders those nodes and concatenates their strings recursively. It ended up working but it was hacky and very slow for the large inputs. In release mode, it was taking almost a minute to render 70 files, and I want about two orders of magnitude lower.
I ran it through profilers and optimized it a bit, but wanted to see if I could simplify the architecture and reduce the amount of work the computer could do. I read about flattening ASTs [2] and how through optimizing that format, you can end up with a sort of bytecode [3]. I also looked into Data-Oriented Design, watching Mike Acton's famous talk [4], Andrew Kelley's talk about DoD in Zig [5], and reading through the DoD book by Richard Fabian [6].
I ended up with something that works quite well for traversing and rendering, which is a stack that can be traversed and rendered in O(n), but I lost my nice Dominate-like API. As in, I can build these beautiful, flat trees, but to embed those trees in my code, I need to either materialize a tree in the traditional style first and then push it onto these stacks, or do some sort of macro magic to make these stack pushes.
I wonder if this is a common issue with stack-based programming. It is, in my case, quite simple for the computer, but hard to fit into an API without building up the stack manually!
