3 ms·

> You don't need to compile the plotting library every time. You don't need to but Julia does. Its definately a issue, and I know it is being worked on. Julia

> You don't need to compile the plotting library every time. You don't need to but Julia does. Its definately a issue, and I know it is being worked on. Julia doesn't store compiled binary code between sessions. Unless you compile it into a sysimage. There are apparently reasons why caching compiled binary like this is complicated in Julia. But once that is solved, wow things are going to be nice.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
> There are apparently reasons why caching compiled binary like this is complicated in Julia. But once that is solved, wow things are going to be nice. I put a lot of hours into julia five years ago and all the same things were being said. I don't know why the compilation is so slow or why the caching is so bad, but it was the main complaint then and still is. The solutions are all 'just around the corner'. It reminds me of java two decades ago. Actually most languages that get a lot of use seem to go through this. The big problems for some reason have solutions "just around the corner" but they remain giant problems. I think what really happens is that people work on what they want. Solving their hard problems is not fun and no one holds anyone's feet to the flames. C++ has had problems with compile time and template errors, but there has been real commercial pressure to making progress on those. Julia's problems are the same as they were half a decade ago. Start working and wait an enormous amount of time for the exact things to compile that you compiled yesterday when you started it up.
- Certhas 6y ago
  I don't think that's fair, simply because things have actually gotten a lot better. This is shown in this blog post and it also is evident to people who use Julia: https://i.redd.it/ik4uymvb28k51.png https://i.redd.it/ik4uymvb28k51.png Also, compiling a sysimage used to be an arcane art, and now works reasonably simply/well. It's easy to imagine a future where, with the tooling that is already there and without a magic breakthrough in caching Julia code, we simply get a per project sys-image in VSC that is recompiled when needed.
- DNF2 6y ago
  Well, a lot of resources have been put into reducing compilation times, and large improvements have been achieved. It's not just perennially 'around the corner', the improvements are tangible and happening right now.
- lhn 6y ago
  I don't think it's fair to say Julia's problems haven't changed at all. While compilation latency is still an ongoing issue, it has consistently and noticeably improved over the years. Package caching is much better, you can save compilation results you depend on in your workflow with PackageCompiler, etc. There are now incredible tools (e.g., SnoopCompile.jl) for package developers to inspect closely where the compiler might have difficulty and fix the issues. The major source of improvements in 1.6 is eliminating method invalidations. Julia's flexibility makes it vulnerable to invalidating already compiled code as new packages are loaded and new methods are defined. This triggers a disastrous cascade of recompiling a bunch of things, and is the main conceptual reason why nothing lower than type-inferred code is cached. If your method will be recompiled anyway, then what good is it to save the native code in the first place? Now that invalidations can be efficiently diagnosed and patched, there is definitely interest into caching lower levels of code in the compilation process, potentially even native machine code. All of these progress however requires labor and care. I'd say the Julia community has spent an admirable amount of efforts into its latency issue, but there's a limit to how fast you can address these problems through open-source development without backing from major tech companies. Imagine the improvements to the Julia compiler had Google chose Julia for its S4TF project, for instance.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

> There are apparently reasons why caching compiled binary like this is complicated in Julia. But once that is solved, wow things are going to be nice. I put a lot of hours into julia five years ago and all the same things were being said. I don't know why the compilation is so slow or why the caching is so bad, but it was the main complaint then and still is. The solutions are all 'just around the corner'. It reminds me of java two decades ago. Actually most languages that get a lot of use seem to go through this. The big problems for some reason have solutions "just around the corner" but they remain giant problems. I think what really happens is that people work on what they want. Solving their hard problems is not fun and no one holds anyone's feet to the flames. C++ has had problems with compile time and template errors, but there has been real commercial pressure to making progress on those. Julia's problems are the same as they were half a decade ago. Start working and wait an enormous amount of time for the exact things to compile that you compiled yesterday when you started it up.

Certhas 6y ago
I don't think that's fair, simply because things have actually gotten a lot better. This is shown in this blog post and it also is evident to people who use Julia: https://i.redd.it/ik4uymvb28k51.png https://i.redd.it/ik4uymvb28k51.png Also, compiling a sysimage used to be an arcane art, and now works reasonably simply/well. It's easy to imagine a future where, with the tooling that is already there and without a magic breakthrough in caching Julia code, we simply get a per project sys-image in VSC that is recompiled when needed.
DNF2 6y ago
Well, a lot of resources have been put into reducing compilation times, and large improvements have been achieved. It's not just perennially 'around the corner', the improvements are tangible and happening right now.
lhn 6y ago
I don't think it's fair to say Julia's problems haven't changed at all. While compilation latency is still an ongoing issue, it has consistently and noticeably improved over the years. Package caching is much better, you can save compilation results you depend on in your workflow with PackageCompiler, etc. There are now incredible tools (e.g., SnoopCompile.jl) for package developers to inspect closely where the compiler might have difficulty and fix the issues. The major source of improvements in 1.6 is eliminating method invalidations. Julia's flexibility makes it vulnerable to invalidating already compiled code as new packages are loaded and new methods are defined. This triggers a disastrous cascade of recompiling a bunch of things, and is the main conceptual reason why nothing lower than type-inferred code is cached. If your method will be recompiled anyway, then what good is it to save the native code in the first place? Now that invalidations can be efficiently diagnosed and patched, there is definitely interest into caching lower levels of code in the compilation process, potentially even native machine code. All of these progress however requires labor and care. I'd say the Julia community has spent an admirable amount of efforts into its latency issue, but there's a limit to how fast you can address these problems through open-source development without backing from major tech companies. Imagine the improvements to the Julia compiler had Google chose Julia for its S4TF project, for instance.