Julia 1.9 Highlights

Re:Julia 1.9 Highlights by tastyminerals2 on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @09:40AM (#35887209)

Come on. Julia is >10 years old. This was a language design decision many years ago, the shortcomings of which have been addressed much later when it started to be clear that it is a problem. Native code caching is available only since 1.9. This is great that team worked hard on them, but if this was not an issue right from the start, Julia could have been in a different place today.

And what's even more ironic, is that speed was never big of an issue until DL epoch kicked in 5 years ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Julia 1.9 Highlights by krastanov on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @10:05AM (#35887553)

I think the dynamical recompilation that made code caching difficult is from 0.6, the last release before 0.7 (the first stable release). From 0.1 (2012 or 2013) to 0.7 julia evolved drastically. They stabilized only in 2018ish. This seems like a pretty reasonable timeline for something no other language has done before (although, as I mentioned, pytorch/jax/tensorflow have some limited similarities, and similar problems).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Julia 1.9 Highlights by tastyminerals2 on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @10:23AM (#35887826)

I see. Right, 2017 was the first time I tried Julia and never came really back. Then the Torch, TF, Keras, PyTorch era started and kept ML engineers busy while I think Julia couldn’t keep up. Well, there is Flux. Not sure how it compares.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Julia 1.9 Highlights by jakobnissen on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @10:40AM (#35888074)

It can't compare, not even close. There is just too little devpower behind Flux. Also, the AD landscape in Julia have been changing so fast that the ground has been shifting under Flux, so to speak.

It's a shame, because Julia is so obviously a good language for DL.

[ Parent | on HN ]