5 ms·

> I really enjoy working with python over any other language. I assume you mean, "over any other language I have tried" ? As someone with a mathematical backg

> I really enjoy working with python over any other language. I assume you mean, "over any other language I have tried" ? As someone with a mathematical background myself, I am always surprised at how many data scientists and quants are ignoring more mathematically principled languages like F#, OCaml and Haskell.

p1esk 7y ago
F#, OCaml and Haskell Can I quickly prototype a new deep learning model and scale it to a 32 GPU cluster with very little effort in those languages?
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  If you put in as much time as you have learning Python, then the answer is probably yes.
  - p1esk 7y ago
    Probably yes What does it mean? Have you done it in any of those language? Have you seen it done in any of those languages?
    - haspok 7y ago
      Although I'm not sure what you mean by "deep learning", you can take a look at Spark: https://spark.apache.org/mllib/ https://spark.apache.org/mllib/ As a bonus, it IS Python (numpy) in the background mixed with Scala. So you can use each language where they make the most sense - Python for the maths number crunching and Scala for the business logic and the architecture. I think Spark also has .net bindings (so you can also tick F# on that list...).
    - ernst_klim 7y ago
      > What does it mean? Have you done it in any of those language? I did. I'm doing a image processing recently and use OCaml for prototyping. I've tried python (I've used it a lot for that long time ago), I've failed, it felt to awkward. I've described my experience here [1] If you have no experience whatsoever with ML family [2], and doing all the stuff in python, you'll most likely be much more productive with python of course. But I find ML-like languages way more pleasant, and I'm far more productive with libraries like owl [3], which are more fundamental and don't have fancy stuff, and ML, rather than with python and fancy lib like numpy/scipy. Also Julia could be a good choice hitting a sweet spot between fancy libraries and fancy language. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20457505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20457505 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) [3] https://ocaml.xyz/ https://ocaml.xyz/
      - p1esk 7y ago
        Right now I’m experimenting with a pretty complicated model (60+ layers of multiple types), and I plan to train it on several hundred GB of data, using 8-16 node cluster (4 GPUs per node). Does Owl have a well tested and well documented autograd library with distributed GPU support (e.g. Horovod)? With a good choice of optimizers, regularizers, normalizers, etc, so I can focus on my model and not on debugging the plumbing or implementing basic ops from scratch. And last, but not least, it must be as fast as TF/Pytorch. If the answer is “no”, then it does not matter whether I’m an OCaml expert, because I’m still going be more productive with Python. p.s. Julia is nice though, hopefully it will keep growing.
        verttii 7y ago
        I feel what you're saying is that regardless of how subpar a language is compared to alternatives as long as it has community built specific libraries that solve your problems you're more productive using them than anything else. Which is of course a fair point. A language by itself is probably not even in the top 3 considerations when choosing new tech. Stuff like runtime, ecosystem and the amount of available developers would probably be more important in most cases.
        p1esk 7y ago
        how subpar a language is compared to alternatives In my 6 years with Python, the only dissatisfaction with the language I felt was from parallel programming. I switched to Python from C, and at the time, I missed C transparency and control over the machine, but that was compensated by the Python conciseness and convenience. Then I had to dig into C++ and I didn't like it at all. Then I played with CUDA and OpenMP, and Cilk+, but I wished all that would be natively available in a single, universal language. Then I started using Theano, then Tensorflow, and now I'm using Pytorch, and am more or less happy with it. It suits my needs well. If something else emerges with a clear advantage, I'll switch to it, but I'm not seeing it yet.
        ernst_klim 7y ago
        > A language by itself is probably not even in the top 3 considerations when choosing new tech. Stuff like runtime, ecosystem and the amount of available developers would probably be more important in most cases. Totally depends on a domain. In serious mission critical software you wont use libraries, but will use the language.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    As much as I love the languages you mentioned: I think it's a major weakness of them that they don't have the linear algebra libraries integrated such that you can do this the same way Python does. There are a lot of reasons why this is.
- afraca 7y ago
  For those unaware: Haskell has a REPL (ghci), and you can make files more script-like with the (currently most popular) build tool stack[0] if you include: #!/usr/bin/env stack -- stack --resolver lts-6.25 script --package turtle (as you see it includes easy dependency management :) ) 0: https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/README/ https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/README/
  - fouc 7y ago
    This doesn't answer their question though. a REPL isn't magical
- willtim 7y ago
  Not until the libraries get built. They didn't exist for Python either until fairly recently in the history of all these languages.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
I dont know about F# and ocaml, but haskell's numerical libraries really pale compared to numpy.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  It's language vs libraries. If you have a library that has a function get_the_shit_done_quick () than you don't care much about the language. When you don't have such function, you need an expressive language to write it (and a bulk of python libs are not written in python, tho mostly for the performance reasons). So it's all about finding a sweet spot between fancy libraries which do the shit for you, and fancy language, which let you to express things, absent in libraries. This sweet spot differs from domain to domain, from user to user. Even in numerical stuff someone could have a requirement for a better language, although this domain is indeed to well defined to have enough fancy libraries.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    Language vs libraries isn't just about an expressive language to build in when you don't have a library. The likelihood of a library's availability also depends on the barrier to entry. An amazing language that isn't usable by biologists won't have many libraries that solve biologist's problems. To your original point of being "surprised at how many data scientists and quants are ignoring more mathematically principled languages like F#, OCaml and Haskell," I'd much rather use one of those languages, but I'd have to build the foundations myself. Today, they aren't the right tool for the job. They don't have the libraries I need, which means I don't build further libraries for them, making other people less likely to build on them, so they aren't the right tool for the job tomorrow either. I'd say it's a network effects thing primarily.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

p1esk 7y ago

F#, OCaml and Haskell Can I quickly prototype a new deep learning model and scale it to a 32 GPU cluster with very little effort in those languages?

CameronNemo 7y ago
If you put in as much time as you have learning Python, then the answer is probably yes.
- p1esk 7y ago
  Probably yes What does it mean? Have you done it in any of those language? Have you seen it done in any of those languages?
  - haspok 7y ago
    Although I'm not sure what you mean by "deep learning", you can take a look at Spark: https://spark.apache.org/mllib/ https://spark.apache.org/mllib/ As a bonus, it IS Python (numpy) in the background mixed with Scala. So you can use each language where they make the most sense - Python for the maths number crunching and Scala for the business logic and the architecture. I think Spark also has .net bindings (so you can also tick F# on that list...).
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    > What does it mean? Have you done it in any of those language? I did. I'm doing a image processing recently and use OCaml for prototyping. I've tried python (I've used it a lot for that long time ago), I've failed, it felt to awkward. I've described my experience here [1] If you have no experience whatsoever with ML family [2], and doing all the stuff in python, you'll most likely be much more productive with python of course. But I find ML-like languages way more pleasant, and I'm far more productive with libraries like owl [3], which are more fundamental and don't have fancy stuff, and ML, rather than with python and fancy lib like numpy/scipy. Also Julia could be a good choice hitting a sweet spot between fancy libraries and fancy language. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20457505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20457505 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language) [3] https://ocaml.xyz/ https://ocaml.xyz/
    - p1esk 7y ago
      Right now I’m experimenting with a pretty complicated model (60+ layers of multiple types), and I plan to train it on several hundred GB of data, using 8-16 node cluster (4 GPUs per node). Does Owl have a well tested and well documented autograd library with distributed GPU support (e.g. Horovod)? With a good choice of optimizers, regularizers, normalizers, etc, so I can focus on my model and not on debugging the plumbing or implementing basic ops from scratch. And last, but not least, it must be as fast as TF/Pytorch. If the answer is “no”, then it does not matter whether I’m an OCaml expert, because I’m still going be more productive with Python. p.s. Julia is nice though, hopefully it will keep growing.
      - verttii 7y ago
        I feel what you're saying is that regardless of how subpar a language is compared to alternatives as long as it has community built specific libraries that solve your problems you're more productive using them than anything else. Which is of course a fair point. A language by itself is probably not even in the top 3 considerations when choosing new tech. Stuff like runtime, ecosystem and the amount of available developers would probably be more important in most cases.
        p1esk 7y ago
        how subpar a language is compared to alternatives In my 6 years with Python, the only dissatisfaction with the language I felt was from parallel programming. I switched to Python from C, and at the time, I missed C transparency and control over the machine, but that was compensated by the Python conciseness and convenience. Then I had to dig into C++ and I didn't like it at all. Then I played with CUDA and OpenMP, and Cilk+, but I wished all that would be natively available in a single, universal language. Then I started using Theano, then Tensorflow, and now I'm using Pytorch, and am more or less happy with it. It suits my needs well. If something else emerges with a clear advantage, I'll switch to it, but I'm not seeing it yet.
        ernst_klim 7y ago
        > A language by itself is probably not even in the top 3 considerations when choosing new tech. Stuff like runtime, ecosystem and the amount of available developers would probably be more important in most cases. Totally depends on a domain. In serious mission critical software you wont use libraries, but will use the language.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  As much as I love the languages you mentioned: I think it's a major weakness of them that they don't have the linear algebra libraries integrated such that you can do this the same way Python does. There are a lot of reasons why this is.
afraca 7y ago
For those unaware: Haskell has a REPL (ghci), and you can make files more script-like with the (currently most popular) build tool stack[0] if you include: #!/usr/bin/env stack -- stack --resolver lts-6.25 script --package turtle (as you see it includes easy dependency management :) ) 0: https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/README/ https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/README/
- fouc 7y ago
  This doesn't answer their question though. a REPL isn't magical
willtim 7y ago
Not until the libraries get built. They didn't exist for Python either until fairly recently in the history of all these languages.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

I dont know about F# and ocaml, but haskell's numerical libraries really pale compared to numpy.

ernst_klim 7y ago
It's language vs libraries. If you have a library that has a function get_the_shit_done_quick () than you don't care much about the language. When you don't have such function, you need an expressive language to write it (and a bulk of python libs are not written in python, tho mostly for the performance reasons). So it's all about finding a sweet spot between fancy libraries which do the shit for you, and fancy language, which let you to express things, absent in libraries. This sweet spot differs from domain to domain, from user to user. Even in numerical stuff someone could have a requirement for a better language, although this domain is indeed to well defined to have enough fancy libraries.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Language vs libraries isn't just about an expressive language to build in when you don't have a library. The likelihood of a library's availability also depends on the barrier to entry. An amazing language that isn't usable by biologists won't have many libraries that solve biologist's problems. To your original point of being "surprised at how many data scientists and quants are ignoring more mathematically principled languages like F#, OCaml and Haskell," I'd much rather use one of those languages, but I'd have to build the foundations myself. Today, they aren't the right tool for the job. They don't have the libraries I need, which means I don't build further libraries for them, making other people less likely to build on them, so they aren't the right tool for the job tomorrow either. I'd say it's a network effects thing primarily.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]