Julia 1.6: what has changed since Julia 1.0?

Re:Julia 1.6: what has changed since Julia 1.0? by jakobnissen on Sunday February 14, 2021 @12:59PM (#26134473)

They require the full Julia environment to run it - and it's a heavy environment. It is possible to compile a binary that includes the environment and the compiler, but IIRC, that will result in a >400 MB hello-world script taking 150 MB of RAM to run.

The core devs have mentioned they are going to add the capacity to compile to actual static binaries, but that does not seem to be a top priority, so I wouldn't hold my breadth waiting for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Julia 1.6: what has changed since Julia 1.0? by adgjlsfhk1 on Sunday February 14, 2021 @03:19PM (#26135861)

Note that this feature doesn't necessary require work by the core devs. It is completely feasible (at least in theory) to write a library that can output static exectuables.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Julia 1.6: what has changed since Julia 1.0? by ChrisRackauckas on Sunday February 14, 2021 @03:27PM (#26135935)

It's actually done all of the time. GPUCompiler.jl, the core of the CUDA and AMD GPU stack, builds static binaries (compiled to .ptx by LLVM for CUDA for example, but the choice is just a switch), then stashes those binaries to use with a ccall in a Julia function. You could in theory use that stack to statically-compile anything that's GPU compliable, and it's really well-tested.

[ Parent | on HN ]