Most active commenters
  • sbarre(3)
  • echoangle(3)

←back to thread

FireDucks: Pandas but Faster

(hwisnu.bearblog.dev)
374 points sebg | 13 comments | 14 Nov 24 11:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | source | bottom
Show context
bratao ◴[20 Nov 24 11:16 UTC] No.42192811[source]▶
Unfortunately it is not Opensource yet - https://github.com/fireducks-dev/fireducks/issues/22
replies(2): >>42192865 #>>42192935 #
1. Y_Y ◴[20 Nov 24 11:27 UTC] No.42192865[source]▶
Wouldn't it be nice if GitHub was just for source code and you couldn't just slap up a README that's an add for some proprietary shitware with a vague promise of source some day in the glorious future?
replies(3): >>42192929 #>>42192940 #>>42193049 #
2. thecopy ◴[20 Nov 24 11:38 UTC] No.42192929[source]▶
>proprietary shitware

Is this shitware? It seems to be very high quality code

replies(2): >>42193251 #>>42193373 #
3. rad_gruchalski ◴[20 Nov 24 11:40 UTC] No.42192940[source]▶
You'd slap that in a comment then?
4. diggan ◴[20 Nov 24 11:56 UTC] No.42193049[source]▶
> Wouldn't it be nice if GitHub was just for source code

GitHub always been a platform for "We love to host FOSS but we won't be 100% FOSS ourselves", so makes sense they allow that kind of usage for others too.

I think what you want, is something like Codeberg instead, which is explicitly for FOSS and 100% FOSS themselves.

5. yupyupyups ◴[20 Nov 24 12:20 UTC] No.42193251[source]▶
I think the anger comes from the fact that we expect Github repositories to host the actual source code and not be a dead-end with a single README.md file.
6. ori_b ◴[20 Nov 24 12:35 UTC] No.42193373[source]▶
How can you tell?
replies(1): >>42193668 #
7. sbarre ◴[20 Nov 24 13:15 UTC] No.42193668{3}[source]▶
I mean, based on the claims and the benchmarks, it seems to provide massive speedups to a very popular tool.

How would you define "quality" in this context?

replies(2): >>42193773 #>>42193949 #
8. echoangle ◴[20 Nov 24 13:30 UTC] No.42193773{4}[source]▶
High quality code isn't just code that performs well when executed, but also is readable, understandable and maintainable. You can't judge code quality by looking at the compiled result, just because it works well.
replies(1): >>42195645 #
9. ori_b ◴[20 Nov 24 13:55 UTC] No.42193949{4}[source]▶
Written so that it's easy to maintain, well tested, correct in its handling of edge cases, easy to debug, and easy to iterate on.
10. sbarre ◴[20 Nov 24 16:37 UTC] No.42195645{5}[source]▶
That's certainly one opinion about it.

One could also say that quality is related to the functional output.

replies(1): >>42195790 #
11. echoangle ◴[20 Nov 24 16:51 UTC] No.42195790{6}[source]▶
> One could also say that quality is related to the functional output.

Right, I said nothing that contradicts that ("High quality code isn't just code that performs well when executed, but also ..."). High quality functional output is a necessary requirement, but it isn't sufficient to determine if code is high quality.

replies(1): >>42197101 #
12. sbarre ◴[20 Nov 24 19:07 UTC] No.42197101{7}[source]▶
Sure, I guess it depends on what matters to you or to your evaluation criteria.

My point was that it's all subjective in the end.

replies(1): >>42197322 #
13. echoangle ◴[20 Nov 24 19:35 UTC] No.42197322{8}[source]▶
It's not really subjective if you're at all reasonable about it.

Imagine writing a very good program, running it through an obfuscator, and throwing away the original code. Is the obfuscated code "high quality code" now, because the output of the compilation still works as before?