Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Presumably, not to be confused with Rexx[1]. Namespace collisions ... or perhaps "wrecks".by smcameron
- It requires trivial effort to search for prior art before naming something.
OP: Worth doing if you'd like others to invest time lookong at your project.
by archonis - It was for me and I intended to comment regarding same.by AdieuToLogic
- I expected a reference to Dex, but they seem to be unrelated?by cl3misch
- Great work! Will be curious to see how it competes with the existing workflow languages such as Nextflow or Snakemake - do you by any chance have a "Why migrate from Nextflow/Snakemake to Rex" pitch I could read somewhere?
- I am curious to see where async would fit. I recognize distributed async is beyond scope for Rex. Given the treatment of content addressable storage (CAS), one could specify workflow states declaratively, poll artifacts for next, and fire tasks to a delegate and then move forward. It would be nice to have a subsystem do that. A question is where parallelism is useful in your scientific workflows, and where it blocks. Quantum chemistry use cases (QDX is behind Rex) are presently beyond me, so I have no idea.
I am thinking that Rex programs are inteneded as an output from a higher level worklow specification language. It would be interesting to see that.