4 ms·

I don’t see the justification for the end user to do their programming in C++ versus Python+Numpy or Julia. Python is already the de facto replacement for Matl

I don’t see the justification for the end user to do their programming in C++ versus Python+Numpy or Julia. Python is already the de facto replacement for Matlab in academia and engineering. And Julia is up and coming, offering many of the benefits of Python+Numpy but designed with performance in mind. Why should I bother with compilers and make files and deal locating memory and all the rest of C++? Because that’s what I’ll have to deal with as soon as I take one step outside of Castor’s (admittedly friendly syntax) and with to do other things in the same language.

gumby 5y ago
Why? Speed and integration.
- _aavaa_ 5y ago
  How much of a speed up versus Python/Julia are we talking about? I didn’t see any direct comparison. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by integration.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    It's linear algebra will be the same speed as python/Julia (they both call to BLAS/LaPack). It's diffeq solvers will almost certainly be worse than Julia (Julia is SOTA there). Not sure about the rest of the functionality.
    - melissalobos 5y ago
      > It's diffeq solvers will almost certainly be worse than Julia (Julia is SOTA there) Worse in what sense? Speed? Almost certainly not, since you would be implementing the solution directly in C++, so it will be as fast as you need(since you can use inline ASM). In Julia the really good diffeq libraries are not built in and this is not a diffeq solving library, so you would have to implement them yourself if you were just using this(so you can use almost exactly the same algorithms, and with more control over memory management in C++ you can maybe have it be a bit faster).
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        I also imagine that with C++17 or higher tooling, alongside something like CINT, it starts to feel quite productive.
      - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
        Have you seen DifferentialEquations.jl? It's an incredibly fast suite of solvers that pretty consistently is faster than Sundials/CVODE/lsoda or any of the other C++ solver. (for a bunch of benchmarks vs pretty much everything else, see https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl)
        melissalobos 5y ago
        Indeed, that particular implementation is very fast. One of the goals of the C++ language is to leave no space for a lower level language than C++. A motivated person could just re-implement those algorithms in C++, in the absolute worst case using inline Assembly and at the very worst exactly match their performance. One of the nice things about Julia is you get good performance without going through a huge amount of effort. However you could always do as good or better in C++(with maybe more effort).
        adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
        Julia is pretty much the same but a few levels higher. Julia gives you some really powerful tools like @code_native (basically godbolt), inline assembly (or @code_llvm) something that , powerful macros, and better code reuse. If you look at the size of Julia libraries compared to similar C++ alternatives, the Julia ones are often about as fast (or faster), but typically around 10x less code. (my favorite example is that Julia's reader for Arrow files is more complete than the C++ one while being smaller than the makefiles for the C++ one (https://twitter.com/MoseGiordano/status/1489255661728796679 https://twitter.com/MoseGiordano/status/1489255661728796679)
  - gumby 5y ago
    > How much of a speed up versus Python/Julia are we talking about? I didn’t see any direct comparison. These things may not matter to your application, but performance for me is more than just linear algebra. With C++ it’s straightforward to manage the working set so I can keep data with computational locality together, manage prefetching at the like. I can run the algos on multiple cores (no GIL, for example). Etc etc. There is plenty of performance comparison between C++ and Python on the web, but alone the statistics mean nothing. Is your speed of development more important than runtime? For many people that would make Python faster. In my case I don’t use C++ as if it is C with other stuff bolted on so my development is just as fast in either language, so I choose the one which gives me more expressive power. It’s not like I’m dissing Julia or Python, though my go to for little explorations is Common Lisp. They are just designed for different points in the solution space. > I’m not sure I understand what you mean by integration. Sorry, I didn’t mean mathematical integration, I meant integration with OpenCV, various robot hardware etc, as well as deeper integration with the hardware.
    - _aavaa_ 5y ago
      > They are just designed for different points in the solution space. I guess my problem is that I don't understand which point of the solution space Castor is trying to go for. > There is plenty of performance comparison between C++ and Python on the web Sorry if I wasn't clear myself. I didn't mean for general python vs c++ comparison. I meant Castor vs the things it is trying to position itself as an alternative to (e.g. numpy or julia).
  - throwawayninja 5y ago
    From my personal experience: system languages are really, really good at interacting with operating systems. When you have things deployed on a server that machine generally has one task, and it makes sense to optimize as many layers as possible. For example on a windows system I used MS's `FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN` flag to triple read performance; you could of course do the same in python by dipping into ctypes but it doesn't make for a pleasant development experience. The big trade-off is you're specifying the task more precisely and as a result of that extra labor you get better performance for the life of the tool. SQLITE has a good story of putting together dozens of small optimizations, each <1% performance change, and at the end the library's throughput doubled in pretty much all tests. It's not worth it for research, but it is everywhere else.
patrick451 5y ago
> Python is already the de facto replacement for Matlab in academia and engineering. Maybe in some disciplines, but in control engineering, basically everybody still uses Matlab. The python control systems libraries are a cheap joke compared to what Matlab offers. The benefit of Julia vs c++ is questionable. Every time you run your program, you have to wait for it compile anyway with Julia. With c++, I pay this cost once, not every run. They keep claiming time-to-first-plot is better. When I tried it a couple weeks ago, it still took __minutes__ to produce a single, simple plot. JIT makes Julia not only frustrating to use, but worse, makes it unsuitable for integration into real time systems. So for a lot of applications, I have to rewrite the algorithm anyway whether I use Julia or python. So something like castor (especially with it's integrated plotting!) could save me time from re-writing. As for the compilers and makefiles? Well, Julia's module/include/import system is worse. At least with a makefile, all the state is in contained within the local build directory, not some global cache julia magically creates.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  How were you making the plot? On my computer, I see time julia -e "using Plots; plot(exp)" taking 13 seconds (and I haven't done anything fancy). If it's taking significantly longer than that, something is very wrong.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Generating a similar plot in Python takes less than half of a second, including startup time. While 13 seconds isn't "minutes" it's still egregiously slow.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      Yeah. It's the main pain point of Julia. For me, it's not really a problem since for interactive use, I mainly use a repl which stays open for hours, and for production use cases, you can make a system image (which essentially caches all the compilation ahead of time). Also, this is a major focus of current Julia development.
  - 5y ago
vsskanth 5y ago
The biggest advantage is the ability to deploy the code as static binaries to be used in other applications. Not needed if you're just scripting and plotting but a huge deal if a scientists fancy numerical code needs to be used in production once you're done prototyping.
artemonster 5y ago
Usually say people that don't do anything serious besides plotting some basic graphs :)
zwieback 5y ago
If you're already a C++ programmer this kind of thing is great since a lot of us already prototype in Python or Matlab so a glidepath to C++ is helpful. Otherwise I agree, prob go with Python.
jmrm 5y ago
Even less justification when you can use GNU Octave, which has the same language, can use the same scripts, has the same functions, and has Octave Forge to download plug-ins for those functions you could miss from MATLAB.

gumby 5y ago

Why? Speed and integration.

_aavaa_ 5y ago
How much of a speed up versus Python/Julia are we talking about? I didn’t see any direct comparison. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by integration.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  It's linear algebra will be the same speed as python/Julia (they both call to BLAS/LaPack). It's diffeq solvers will almost certainly be worse than Julia (Julia is SOTA there). Not sure about the rest of the functionality.
  - melissalobos 5y ago
    > It's diffeq solvers will almost certainly be worse than Julia (Julia is SOTA there) Worse in what sense? Speed? Almost certainly not, since you would be implementing the solution directly in C++, so it will be as fast as you need(since you can use inline ASM). In Julia the really good diffeq libraries are not built in and this is not a diffeq solving library, so you would have to implement them yourself if you were just using this(so you can use almost exactly the same algorithms, and with more control over memory management in C++ you can maybe have it be a bit faster).
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      I also imagine that with C++17 or higher tooling, alongside something like CINT, it starts to feel quite productive.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      Have you seen DifferentialEquations.jl? It's an incredibly fast suite of solvers that pretty consistently is faster than Sundials/CVODE/lsoda or any of the other C++ solver. (for a bunch of benchmarks vs pretty much everything else, see https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl)
      - melissalobos 5y ago
        Indeed, that particular implementation is very fast. One of the goals of the C++ language is to leave no space for a lower level language than C++. A motivated person could just re-implement those algorithms in C++, in the absolute worst case using inline Assembly and at the very worst exactly match their performance. One of the nice things about Julia is you get good performance without going through a huge amount of effort. However you could always do as good or better in C++(with maybe more effort).
        adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
        Julia is pretty much the same but a few levels higher. Julia gives you some really powerful tools like @code_native (basically godbolt), inline assembly (or @code_llvm) something that , powerful macros, and better code reuse. If you look at the size of Julia libraries compared to similar C++ alternatives, the Julia ones are often about as fast (or faster), but typically around 10x less code. (my favorite example is that Julia's reader for Arrow files is more complete than the C++ one while being smaller than the makefiles for the C++ one (https://twitter.com/MoseGiordano/status/1489255661728796679 https://twitter.com/MoseGiordano/status/1489255661728796679)
- gumby 5y ago
  > How much of a speed up versus Python/Julia are we talking about? I didn’t see any direct comparison. These things may not matter to your application, but performance for me is more than just linear algebra. With C++ it’s straightforward to manage the working set so I can keep data with computational locality together, manage prefetching at the like. I can run the algos on multiple cores (no GIL, for example). Etc etc. There is plenty of performance comparison between C++ and Python on the web, but alone the statistics mean nothing. Is your speed of development more important than runtime? For many people that would make Python faster. In my case I don’t use C++ as if it is C with other stuff bolted on so my development is just as fast in either language, so I choose the one which gives me more expressive power. It’s not like I’m dissing Julia or Python, though my go to for little explorations is Common Lisp. They are just designed for different points in the solution space. > I’m not sure I understand what you mean by integration. Sorry, I didn’t mean mathematical integration, I meant integration with OpenCV, various robot hardware etc, as well as deeper integration with the hardware.
  - _aavaa_ 5y ago
    > They are just designed for different points in the solution space. I guess my problem is that I don't understand which point of the solution space Castor is trying to go for. > There is plenty of performance comparison between C++ and Python on the web Sorry if I wasn't clear myself. I didn't mean for general python vs c++ comparison. I meant Castor vs the things it is trying to position itself as an alternative to (e.g. numpy or julia).
- throwawayninja 5y ago
  From my personal experience: system languages are really, really good at interacting with operating systems. When you have things deployed on a server that machine generally has one task, and it makes sense to optimize as many layers as possible. For example on a windows system I used MS's `FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN` flag to triple read performance; you could of course do the same in python by dipping into ctypes but it doesn't make for a pleasant development experience. The big trade-off is you're specifying the task more precisely and as a result of that extra labor you get better performance for the life of the tool. SQLITE has a good story of putting together dozens of small optimizations, each <1% performance change, and at the end the library's throughput doubled in pretty much all tests. It's not worth it for research, but it is everywhere else.

patrick451 5y ago

> Python is already the de facto replacement for Matlab in academia and engineering. Maybe in some disciplines, but in control engineering, basically everybody still uses Matlab. The python control systems libraries are a cheap joke compared to what Matlab offers. The benefit of Julia vs c++ is questionable. Every time you run your program, you have to wait for it compile anyway with Julia. With c++, I pay this cost once, not every run. They keep claiming time-to-first-plot is better. When I tried it a couple weeks ago, it still took __minutes__ to produce a single, simple plot. JIT makes Julia not only frustrating to use, but worse, makes it unsuitable for integration into real time systems. So for a lot of applications, I have to rewrite the algorithm anyway whether I use Julia or python. So something like castor (especially with it's integrated plotting!) could save me time from re-writing. As for the compilers and makefiles? Well, Julia's module/include/import system is worse. At least with a makefile, all the state is in contained within the local build directory, not some global cache julia magically creates.

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
How were you making the plot? On my computer, I see time julia -e "using Plots; plot(exp)" taking 13 seconds (and I haven't done anything fancy). If it's taking significantly longer than that, something is very wrong.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Generating a similar plot in Python takes less than half of a second, including startup time. While 13 seconds isn't "minutes" it's still egregiously slow.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    Yeah. It's the main pain point of Julia. For me, it's not really a problem since for interactive use, I mainly use a repl which stays open for hours, and for production use cases, you can make a system image (which essentially caches all the compilation ahead of time). Also, this is a major focus of current Julia development.
- 5y ago

vsskanth 5y ago

The biggest advantage is the ability to deploy the code as static binaries to be used in other applications. Not needed if you're just scripting and plotting but a huge deal if a scientists fancy numerical code needs to be used in production once you're done prototyping.

artemonster 5y ago

Usually say people that don't do anything serious besides plotting some basic graphs :)

zwieback 5y ago

If you're already a C++ programmer this kind of thing is great since a lot of us already prototype in Python or Matlab so a glidepath to C++ is helpful. Otherwise I agree, prob go with Python.

jmrm 5y ago

Even less justification when you can use GNU Octave, which has the same language, can use the same scripts, has the same functions, and has Octave Forge to download plug-ins for those functions you could miss from MATLAB.