Re:Re-implementing LangChain in 100 lines of code
by 19h on Thursday May 04, 2023 @11:12PM
(#35824811)
Comparing Langchain to Hugging Face Transformers is apples and oranges. One is for research, one is for production. Production ML requires more abstraction, not less.
Re:Re-implementing LangChain in 100 lines of code
by crazyedgar on Friday May 05, 2023 @01:14AM
(#35825446)
I disagree. Production systems don't need to be full of AbstractSingletonProxyFactoryBeans which is basically what LangChain is. For example, Linux certainly isn't.
Re:Re-implementing LangChain in 100 lines of code
by dpbrinkm on Sunday May 14, 2023 @06:02AM
(#35936822)
>someone who has created several LLM-based applications running in production
Come and talk about what you are doing and challenges of it at our LLM in production virtual conference? https://home.mlops.community/home/events/llm-in-prod-part-ii...
And as soon as you want to slightly modify something to better accomodate your use-case, you are trapped in layers & layers of Python boiler plate code and unnecessary abstractions.
Maybe our llm applications haven’t been complex enough to warrent the use of langchain, but if that’s the case, then I wonder how many of such complex applications actually exist today.
-> Anyways, I came away feeling quite let down by the hype.
For my own personal workflow, a more “hackable” architecture would be much more valuable. Totally fine if that means it’s less “general”. As a comparison, I remember the early days of HugginfaceTransformers where they did not try to create a 100% high-level general abstraction on top of every conceivable Neural Network architecture. Instead, each model architecture was somewhat separate from one another, making it much easier to “hack” it.