5 ms·

Should have used Julia instead. The choice was only because of the Chris Lattner who already left.

by xvilka 6y ago

marcinzm 6y ago
They presumably wanted a semi-popular statically typed language as the gains of Julia over Python aren't enough to be worth it (and Julia isn't popular enough).
- pjmlp 6y ago
  On HN circles maybe. https://juliacomputing.com/case-studies/ https://juliacomputing.com/case-studies/
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    There's a difference between popular and "not a toy language." I'm not arguing Julia isn't used, I'm arguing it's not used often enough to be a merit irrespective of other reasons.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Interesting given some of the renowned names using it, probably with more revenue than plenty of Rust unicorns.
      - MiroF 6y ago
        Apple, Microsoft, Google? This website isn't counting "Julia only" stacks, it's just companies that have used Julia for one project or another. If you really want to compare that to rust, julia is again going to fall short.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Those were not the companies I had in mind with my Rust remark, but if you so wish, Swift, Kotlin/Native, Go, C++, .NET Native, Verona, Checked C, Objective-C. It remains to be seen how much Rust they will actually make into tier 1 OS SDKs for userspace applications. In fact, currently it looks more they are bringing their experience with Rust into their platform languages than anything else. Swift memory ownership, Verona, C++ Core Guidelines checker, Kotlin/Native ownership rules. Beware wishing for Julia's downfall with glass ceilings.
    - socialdemocrat 6y ago
      Julia is used in serious scientific work. Swift isn’t. Massive projects running on super computers such a next generation climate models are written Julia. Many best of breeds scientific packages are written in Julia. Swift while great for App development has limited presence in the scientific field.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Semi-popular where? The typical iOS programmer isn't going to touch ML. In the relevant demography, Julia had (still has) more users. Swift4TF was a poor choice, and now that Lattner is gone I doubt it has a future.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Julia is out because it's not statically typed and not enough of a difference from Python. If it was more popular then it may have had a chance on that alone but it's not. In terms of semi-popular statically typed modern languages that have good/performant C/C++ interop you have: Go, Swift and Rust. Can't think of any others to be honest. I'm guessing Go's lack of generics excluded it and Rust's complexity excluded it.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      TF's own analysis[0] was hesitant on static vs dynamic, finding downsides for either choice and suggested choosing a "middle ground" (which IMHO was doable starting from Julia's optional types). So static typing might be your requirement, but it wasn't TF's requirement. When examining Julia later on, they don't mention dynamic types as a downside at all - and every argument save for "we're familiar with Swift's internal working" was contradicted within the same document... Now, being familiar with Swift is a very understandable reason for their choice, but it's IMHO not the best choice for others which are not as familiar with Swift or ML. Most ML users are very familiar with Python and I think they will find Julia to be a welcome improvement on Python's pain points without Swift's baggage. [0] https://github.com/tensorflow/swift/blob/master/docs/WhySwiftForTensorFlow.md https://github.com/tensorflow/swift/blob/master/docs/WhySwif...

Should have used Julia instead. The choice was only because of the Chris Lattner who already left.

by xvilka 6y ago

Should have used Julia instead. The choice was only because of the Chris Lattner who already left.

They presumably wanted a semi-popular statically typed language as the gains of Julia over Python aren't enough to be worth it (and Julia isn't popular enough).

pjmlp 6y ago
On HN circles maybe. https://juliacomputing.com/case-studies/ https://juliacomputing.com/case-studies/
- marcinzm 6y ago
  There's a difference between popular and "not a toy language." I'm not arguing Julia isn't used, I'm arguing it's not used often enough to be a merit irrespective of other reasons.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Interesting given some of the renowned names using it, probably with more revenue than plenty of Rust unicorns.
    - MiroF 6y ago
      Apple, Microsoft, Google? This website isn't counting "Julia only" stacks, it's just companies that have used Julia for one project or another. If you really want to compare that to rust, julia is again going to fall short.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Those were not the companies I had in mind with my Rust remark, but if you so wish, Swift, Kotlin/Native, Go, C++, .NET Native, Verona, Checked C, Objective-C. It remains to be seen how much Rust they will actually make into tier 1 OS SDKs for userspace applications. In fact, currently it looks more they are bringing their experience with Rust into their platform languages than anything else. Swift memory ownership, Verona, C++ Core Guidelines checker, Kotlin/Native ownership rules. Beware wishing for Julia's downfall with glass ceilings.
  - socialdemocrat 6y ago
    Julia is used in serious scientific work. Swift isn’t. Massive projects running on super computers such a next generation climate models are written Julia. Many best of breeds scientific packages are written in Julia. Swift while great for App development has limited presence in the scientific field.
yyyk 6y ago
Semi-popular where? The typical iOS programmer isn't going to touch ML. In the relevant demography, Julia had (still has) more users. Swift4TF was a poor choice, and now that Lattner is gone I doubt it has a future.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Julia is out because it's not statically typed and not enough of a difference from Python. If it was more popular then it may have had a chance on that alone but it's not. In terms of semi-popular statically typed modern languages that have good/performant C/C++ interop you have: Go, Swift and Rust. Can't think of any others to be honest. I'm guessing Go's lack of generics excluded it and Rust's complexity excluded it.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    TF's own analysis[0] was hesitant on static vs dynamic, finding downsides for either choice and suggested choosing a "middle ground" (which IMHO was doable starting from Julia's optional types). So static typing might be your requirement, but it wasn't TF's requirement. When examining Julia later on, they don't mention dynamic types as a downside at all - and every argument save for "we're familiar with Swift's internal working" was contradicted within the same document... Now, being familiar with Swift is a very understandable reason for their choice, but it's IMHO not the best choice for others which are not as familiar with Swift or ML. Most ML users are very familiar with Python and I think they will find Julia to be a welcome improvement on Python's pain points without Swift's baggage. [0] https://github.com/tensorflow/swift/blob/master/docs/WhySwiftForTensorFlow.md https://github.com/tensorflow/swift/blob/master/docs/WhySwif...