Based on the abstract it's not a study showing that "Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease [are] attributable to sugar beverages", it's a paper quantifying the "[Amount of] Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease [that are] attributable to sugar beverages [in various countries]". The link and causation is already well established. This is trying to determine how much harm it's doing in different parts of the world.
It is made possible by my code. But I would emphasize that the code is quite trivial. It's literally just populating a prompt template with the output of a previous template-- simple string manipulation. I never could understand why anyone would want to use Langchain for that sort of thing.
We're trying to cover two main use cases: API apps and full stack web applications. There are features in Rails that we recognize to be really useful. For that niche we're trying to be a lightweight alternative.
@vidarh Lotus doesn't depend on Lotus::Model. I kept it out from the dependencies because of the reasons that you've described. Future versions of Lotus will have some facilities for Model, but it won't be a requirement.
EDIT: BTW Lotus::Model is shipped with an SQL adapter that is a nicer wrapper on top of Sequel. If you love this library you will love Lotus::Model too.
1. A Design pattern or an opinion can be right for some people, wrong for other. There is no such thing as absolute truth.
2. Indirection in software development is a subjective matter. MVC can be fine for some people, not enough or overkilling for other. But argumenting things with "My solution works" or "I use it in my successful business" is nonsense.
That questionable Ruby snippet isn't something that I'd use for real.
> That's like arguing that if your book is longer than 300 pages, it must also use really big words and complex sentence structures. What?
I don't think this analogy applies. If my house is full of things, I prefer to put them in small, well recognizable boxes, instead of in one gigantic mess. This is simplicity too.
Shouldn’t it be “linked” instead?
The paper indicates correlation, not causality.
reply