5 ms·

Phenomenal language. compiles applications to a single binary which makes it super convenient to move around environments

oblio 8y ago
How? Everything I've read about Julia seems to show that you're supposed to pass the source code files around. https://medium.com/@sdanisch/compiling-julia-binaries-ddd6d4e0caf4 https://medium.com/@sdanisch/compiling-julia-binaries-ddd6d4... -> notice that's a third party package.
- ninjin 8y ago
  Indeed, which comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. As someone that has to always care about performance, Machine Learning, I am very happy not to have to worry about dependencies not being compiled to take advantage of the latest and greatest CPU instructions on a specific box in a very heterogeneous cluster. Now, you could just compile it all on each deployment, but something as large as say TensorFlow takes ages and not everyone gets to enjoy having great devops at your beck and call.
  - oblio 8y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean: you prefer compilation on the target machines or you prefer a static binary?
    - ninjin 8y ago
      Compilation on the target machine, in my case. Performance trumps portability for me, but I can totally see why this is not the case for everyone.
      - oblio 8y ago
        In theory that can be solved with the best of both worlds: have the runtime and JIT in the final binary. That way you still get easy deployment with 1 big file and high performance after the JIT warms up, which should be fast. I think it's just a problem of manpower on the Julia developer side.
        ninjin 8y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree, one could also note how this is Java-esque. My hope is that someone far more well-versed than me in this area will find the time and push for it. On that note, one wonderful thing about Julia is how easy it is to contribute to the core language since it is written in Julia. It really is amazing to see people from so many disciplines come together to push a “language for science as a whole”.
- pkofod 8y ago
  What do you mean that it's "third party"?
  - oblio 8y ago
    It's not part of the official Julia package. javac comes from Oracle, rustc comes from the Rust developers, etc.
    - Sean1708 8y ago
      JuliaLang are the Julia developers, PackageCompiler.jl is no more third-party than cargo is.
      - oblio 8y ago
        Oh, my bad, the original link was: https://github.com/SimonDanisch/PackageCompiler.jl https://github.com/SimonDanisch/PackageCompiler.jl. Now I see that redirects to JuliaLang. However, unless I'm missing something, that argument isn't that much stronger. 1. Is the package actually promoted and actively maintained by the Julia developers? Or even better: 2. Is the package part of the default Julia installation? And even: 3. Is the package documented on the Julia site, as part of an officially recommended process?
        Sean1708 8y ago
        Ah sorry, I didn't realise that the original link pointed somewhere else.
        ChrisRackauckas 8y ago
        >1. Is the package actually promoted and actively maintained by the Julia developers? Yes. >2. Is the package part of the default Julia installation? No, mostly because it's not done yet and only experimental right now. >3. Is the package documented on the Julia site, as part of an officially recommended process? No, mostly because it's not done yet and only experimental right now.

oblio 8y ago

How? Everything I've read about Julia seems to show that you're supposed to pass the source code files around. https://medium.com/@sdanisch/compiling-julia-binaries-ddd6d4e0caf4 https://medium.com/@sdanisch/compiling-julia-binaries-ddd6d4... -> notice that's a third party package.

ninjin 8y ago
Indeed, which comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. As someone that has to always care about performance, Machine Learning, I am very happy not to have to worry about dependencies not being compiled to take advantage of the latest and greatest CPU instructions on a specific box in a very heterogeneous cluster. Now, you could just compile it all on each deployment, but something as large as say TensorFlow takes ages and not everyone gets to enjoy having great devops at your beck and call.
- oblio 8y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you mean: you prefer compilation on the target machines or you prefer a static binary?
  - ninjin 8y ago
    Compilation on the target machine, in my case. Performance trumps portability for me, but I can totally see why this is not the case for everyone.
    - oblio 8y ago
      In theory that can be solved with the best of both worlds: have the runtime and JIT in the final binary. That way you still get easy deployment with 1 big file and high performance after the JIT warms up, which should be fast. I think it's just a problem of manpower on the Julia developer side.
      - ninjin 8y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree, one could also note how this is Java-esque. My hope is that someone far more well-versed than me in this area will find the time and push for it. On that note, one wonderful thing about Julia is how easy it is to contribute to the core language since it is written in Julia. It really is amazing to see people from so many disciplines come together to push a “language for science as a whole”.
pkofod 8y ago
What do you mean that it's "third party"?
- oblio 8y ago
  It's not part of the official Julia package. javac comes from Oracle, rustc comes from the Rust developers, etc.
  - Sean1708 8y ago
    JuliaLang are the Julia developers, PackageCompiler.jl is no more third-party than cargo is.
    - oblio 8y ago
      Oh, my bad, the original link was: https://github.com/SimonDanisch/PackageCompiler.jl https://github.com/SimonDanisch/PackageCompiler.jl. Now I see that redirects to JuliaLang. However, unless I'm missing something, that argument isn't that much stronger. 1. Is the package actually promoted and actively maintained by the Julia developers? Or even better: 2. Is the package part of the default Julia installation? And even: 3. Is the package documented on the Julia site, as part of an officially recommended process?
      - Sean1708 8y ago
        Ah sorry, I didn't realise that the original link pointed somewhere else.
      - ChrisRackauckas 8y ago
        >1. Is the package actually promoted and actively maintained by the Julia developers? Yes. >2. Is the package part of the default Julia installation? No, mostly because it's not done yet and only experimental right now. >3. Is the package documented on the Julia site, as part of an officially recommended process? No, mostly because it's not done yet and only experimental right now.