6 ms·

Than I guess Julia will be an even more powerful language to learn, as it combines the flexibility of Python with all the use cases of all major technical/scien

by kensai 7y ago

Than I guess Julia will be an even more powerful language to learn, as it combines the flexibility of Python with all the use cases of all major technical/scientific languages, while being efficient and fast. https://juliacomputing.com/domains/ https://juliacomputing.com/domains/

bayesian_horse 7y ago
I think Julia is better designed than R. But it lacks R's ecosystem, so Julia is a tougher sell. I haven't done a lot with Julia, so I don't know if it's easier to teach Julia to novices than Python or R.
- elcritch 7y ago
  Julia’s ecosystem has been progressing since 1.0. The GLM.jl lib has become much better as has the data frame package. It’s more consistent than Python‘s data-science ecosystem since it’s not tying disparate C code together. But having strong types (actual, not mypy) helps make code more consistent. Still Julia’s ecosystem seems to be building more from R’s more solid academic approach.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Yes, Julia has a lot of benefits in some regards. The community is great. But small. For a lot of situations, I'd be hesitant to invest in Julia, because I don't know if the community will stay that way or if it fades away.
    - ViralBShah 7y ago
      Out of curiosity, how would you know that the community is large enough, or committed enough? For example, while Julia has been in development for almost 10 years, a lot of the community has now been around for 5 years. There's about 2,500 Julia packages, with the ability to call C, Fortran, R, Python, Java, etc. All the key community stats based on downloads, website views, videos show a healthy growth every year. While in absolute numbers, we may be at 20% of R or Python communities, I am always curious to understand what people mean when they say the community is too small. What would be a signal that a particular community is big enough?
    - elcritch 7y ago
      For me as long as a core group appears to be active I’m fine with a communities survivability. Julia’s data-science and plotting have continued to improve in terms of documentation and feature parity, both are critical in an immature ecosystem as they indicate an active core group of developers. Also many libraries appear to be driven by academics creating cutting edge libraries or developing "workhorse" libraries. One good example is Steven G Johnson’s involvement in Julia [1,2], since he created the FFTW library and NLOpt I’d put him in the category of ‘prolific data science contributor’. Or are take the Julia GaussianProcesses.jl [3] library which has a surprisingly thorough implementation along with academic research (and its citable!) for speeding up GP fitting. Pretty cool! Plus it’s pretty performant to say use Otim.jl to optimize the "hyper parameters" for a set of GP’s. That enables a lot more iterations of data exploration. Essentially the base ecosystem of a language is driven by a core group of contributors and the derivation an ability of that group matters more than most other factors. When doing scientific and or data science I personally care more about the core quality and what the platform enables. Lately I’ve considered learning R as it has a lot of well done says which simply aren’t available in Python, and aren’t ready yet in Julia. Last time I tried to calculate a confidence interval in Python for an obscure probability function I ended up wanting to pull out my air in frustration. There’s libraries that kind of handle it in Python but they are (we’re?) nigh impossible to modify or re-use for a generalized case. Much less getting a proper covariance matrix with enough documentation to know what to do with it. I used R examples to figure out the correct maths. R’s NSE seems appealing in allowing generalized re-use. I’ve had similar ability to re-use library features in Julia for solving problems outside that libraries initial scope. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_G._Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_G._Johnson 2: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/steven-johnson-as-a-juliacon-2019-keynote-speaker/22513 https://discourse.julialang.org/t/steven-johnson-as-a-juliac... 3: https://github.com/STOR-i/GaussianProcesses.jl https://github.com/STOR-i/GaussianProcesses.jl
  - j88439h84 7y ago
    What's the difference between julia's types and mypy other than julia lacking a static checker?
    - johnmyleswhite 7y ago
      Mypy types don't usually have any runtime enforcement.
    - dnautics 7y ago
      Julia uses types as compiler hints. If you dispatch f(x) as f(1.0), in most cases it will lazily compile f to be float-optimized. When you run f(1) it will recompile it to be integer optimized. This enables you to also select libraries: a standard float type will use blas for matrix ops; a gpu float type will use cuda.
- ChrisRackauckas 7y ago
  >But it lacks R's ecosystem, so Julia is a tougher sell. In the areas I work in (scientific computing and scientific machine learning), you can really only find the packages in Julia while R and Python's ecosystems are quite lacking. R has stats and Python has ML, but the rest of the scientific ecosystems there just aren't as complete.
  - La1n 7y ago
    R definitely leads in molecular biology too. A lot of the bioconductor tools have no equivalent in both Julia or Python.
    - cbkeller 7y ago
      I think these folks are working on it: https://biojulia.net/ https://biojulia.net/
- kwertzzz 7y ago
  The interoperability of Julia and Python is really good (Julia calling Python and vice-versa). There is also the possibility to call R functions (but I do not use it personally). To some degree, one can leverage python's ecosystem in Julia. Our group switched from matlab to Julia are we are quite happy with the move. For teaching, I think that Julia indexing (for example: vector[2:end-1]) is easier to explain than numpy (vector[1:-1]). On the other hand, I like python's plain English operators and/or versus && / || in Julia. Also loops tends to be more readable than vertorised code in some circumstances (e.g. computing the Laplacian by finite difference). In Julia, loop and vectorized code are both quite efficient, while in python and R, one has to vectorize the code.

by kensai 7y ago

bayesian_horse 7y ago

I think Julia is better designed than R. But it lacks R's ecosystem, so Julia is a tougher sell. I haven't done a lot with Julia, so I don't know if it's easier to teach Julia to novices than Python or R.

elcritch 7y ago
Julia’s ecosystem has been progressing since 1.0. The GLM.jl lib has become much better as has the data frame package. It’s more consistent than Python‘s data-science ecosystem since it’s not tying disparate C code together. But having strong types (actual, not mypy) helps make code more consistent. Still Julia’s ecosystem seems to be building more from R’s more solid academic approach.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Yes, Julia has a lot of benefits in some regards. The community is great. But small. For a lot of situations, I'd be hesitant to invest in Julia, because I don't know if the community will stay that way or if it fades away.
  - ViralBShah 7y ago
    Out of curiosity, how would you know that the community is large enough, or committed enough? For example, while Julia has been in development for almost 10 years, a lot of the community has now been around for 5 years. There's about 2,500 Julia packages, with the ability to call C, Fortran, R, Python, Java, etc. All the key community stats based on downloads, website views, videos show a healthy growth every year. While in absolute numbers, we may be at 20% of R or Python communities, I am always curious to understand what people mean when they say the community is too small. What would be a signal that a particular community is big enough?
  - elcritch 7y ago
    For me as long as a core group appears to be active I’m fine with a communities survivability. Julia’s data-science and plotting have continued to improve in terms of documentation and feature parity, both are critical in an immature ecosystem as they indicate an active core group of developers. Also many libraries appear to be driven by academics creating cutting edge libraries or developing "workhorse" libraries. One good example is Steven G Johnson’s involvement in Julia [1,2], since he created the FFTW library and NLOpt I’d put him in the category of ‘prolific data science contributor’. Or are take the Julia GaussianProcesses.jl [3] library which has a surprisingly thorough implementation along with academic research (and its citable!) for speeding up GP fitting. Pretty cool! Plus it’s pretty performant to say use Otim.jl to optimize the "hyper parameters" for a set of GP’s. That enables a lot more iterations of data exploration. Essentially the base ecosystem of a language is driven by a core group of contributors and the derivation an ability of that group matters more than most other factors. When doing scientific and or data science I personally care more about the core quality and what the platform enables. Lately I’ve considered learning R as it has a lot of well done says which simply aren’t available in Python, and aren’t ready yet in Julia. Last time I tried to calculate a confidence interval in Python for an obscure probability function I ended up wanting to pull out my air in frustration. There’s libraries that kind of handle it in Python but they are (we’re?) nigh impossible to modify or re-use for a generalized case. Much less getting a proper covariance matrix with enough documentation to know what to do with it. I used R examples to figure out the correct maths. R’s NSE seems appealing in allowing generalized re-use. I’ve had similar ability to re-use library features in Julia for solving problems outside that libraries initial scope. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_G._Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_G._Johnson 2: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/steven-johnson-as-a-juliacon-2019-keynote-speaker/22513 https://discourse.julialang.org/t/steven-johnson-as-a-juliac... 3: https://github.com/STOR-i/GaussianProcesses.jl https://github.com/STOR-i/GaussianProcesses.jl
- j88439h84 7y ago
  What's the difference between julia's types and mypy other than julia lacking a static checker?
  - johnmyleswhite 7y ago
    Mypy types don't usually have any runtime enforcement.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    Julia uses types as compiler hints. If you dispatch f(x) as f(1.0), in most cases it will lazily compile f to be float-optimized. When you run f(1) it will recompile it to be integer optimized. This enables you to also select libraries: a standard float type will use blas for matrix ops; a gpu float type will use cuda.
ChrisRackauckas 7y ago
>But it lacks R's ecosystem, so Julia is a tougher sell. In the areas I work in (scientific computing and scientific machine learning), you can really only find the packages in Julia while R and Python's ecosystems are quite lacking. R has stats and Python has ML, but the rest of the scientific ecosystems there just aren't as complete.
- La1n 7y ago
  R definitely leads in molecular biology too. A lot of the bioconductor tools have no equivalent in both Julia or Python.
  - cbkeller 7y ago
    I think these folks are working on it: https://biojulia.net/ https://biojulia.net/
kwertzzz 7y ago
The interoperability of Julia and Python is really good (Julia calling Python and vice-versa). There is also the possibility to call R functions (but I do not use it personally). To some degree, one can leverage python's ecosystem in Julia. Our group switched from matlab to Julia are we are quite happy with the move. For teaching, I think that Julia indexing (for example: vector[2:end-1]) is easier to explain than numpy (vector[1:-1]). On the other hand, I like python's plain English operators and/or versus && / || in Julia. Also loops tends to be more readable than vertorised code in some circumstances (e.g. computing the Laplacian by finite difference). In Julia, loop and vectorized code are both quite efficient, while in python and R, one has to vectorize the code.