> It's missing some important feature, like persistence? For the use cases I'm envisioning, this strikes me as a nice-to-have, and even then only if the persis

> It's missing some important feature, like persistence? For the use cases I'm envisioning, this strikes me as a nice-to-have, and even then only if the persistence API were sufficiently easy to use (or at least to avoid). > It's had very little advertising? I hadn't heard much about it till now. > Rust is intimidating? At work I need a killer reason to inflict _any_ language on everyone else. We have a lot of shallow computation graphs (really the same few graphs on different datasets) and a few deep graphs which need incremental updates. The cost of an ad-hoc solution is less than the perceived cost (maybe the real cost) of adopting an additional language. > Other Broad classes of algorithms will basically expand to being full re-computations with this framework (based on a quick read of the whitepaper), and adopting a tool for efficient incremental updates is less enticing if I'm going to have to manually fiddle with a bunch of update algorithms anyway. E.g., kernel density estimation needs to be designed from the ground up to support incremental updates; a naive translation of those algorithms to dataflow would efficiently update some sub-components like covariance matrices, but you'd still wind up doing O(full_rebuild) work.