4 ms·

macOS on ARM is still tier 2 and not tier 1? Not related to this but I think Julia is too ambitious too succeed, at least in a normal timeframe. Languages like

macOS on ARM is still tier 2 and not tier 1? Not related to this but I think Julia is too ambitious too succeed, at least in a normal timeframe. Languages like Rust and even Python managed to improve a lot more compared to their goals than Julia compared to the goal "a modern language, a modern top edge research level scientific library rewritten from scratch". I enjoy the community that is backing it, really, but there is still no solid core. A lot of research level cool functions and algorithms, yes. But you still suffer from lagginess, inexact calculations and language idiosyncrasies. In short too much dispersion and divergence in this project. It's almost like this language was designed by academics...

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
MacOS on ARM is technically tier 2, but we expect to promote it to tier 1 within a month or so. Basically we just want to make sure that 1.8 is as stable on M1 as we think it is. Until you have thousands of users testing everything, it's hard to declare confidently that everything works perfectly.
jakobnissen 4y ago
You might be right that Julia's sky high ambitions make it seem like a failure no matter what it does. I mean, it could have strived for just being a pleasant dynamic language with a fast amortized running time, and then it would have succeeded in 2018. But is it not better to both achieve you mediocre goals and also have extremely ambitious goals that may still be achieved, than merely having mediocre goals? I don't really agree that Julia right now doesn't have anything to show for its huge amibitions. In my opinion it's already the best language for science by quite a large margin. I understand it still lacks some tooling, reliability and deployment options to be attractive for many industrial clients (though Julia is already making inroads in industry - I have an old friend from college who uses Julia in production). It's also understandable that some people used it and found the latency unacceptable. The thing is - there is no reason to believe that tooling, reliability and deployment options won't come around. The stuff is being built. It's just happening "too" slowly right now.
leephillips 4y ago
You may have a particular measure of success in mind, but it seems to me that Julia has already succeeded: it is a new language for scientific computing that met its goals of providing high level abstractions and an expressive syntax while not compromising on performance. Its public release was in 2012 and it’s already one of only four languages used in high-performance scientific computing. Of course, in many areas its ecosystem is immature; but in others, such as differential equation solving, it’s a leader.
Mikeb85 4y ago
This. I was hoping Julia would be a quicker and more pleasant R. Instead it's turning into a super ambitious language that wants to be as fast as C++ but that makes it slightly less pleasant and useful than R. And if I need C++ speed I can just write C++...
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  > And if I need C++ speed I can just write C++... Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but surely you can't "just write C++". If you could, why would you ever use R, which is way slower, less backwards compatible and can't be shipped as a binary? I'm guessing you use R because it's easier to use than C++, interactive, and quicker to get stuff done in. That sounds to me like a list of criteria where Julia should aspire to beating R - if we can.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    With RCpp writing a function in C++ that you can then use from R is easy. So you do as much as you can in R, then if you reach a bottleneck, use a lil CPP, then R. It's still nice.
    - krastanov 4y ago
      Same with python. But then you have the following problem: How do you use tools that were designed to exploit the introspection of these languages when you have C++ submodules? This is called "the two language problem", and it is not just about ergonomics (e.g. you do not seem to have issues with the ergonomics of this approach). Rather the issue is that now I can not have a library that introspects my R code and performs automatic differentiation or some other advanced compile pass over my code, because not all of the code is written in R. This is also why most of the advanced SciPy functionality can not be used with Tensorflow, or use Jax's autodiff feature with Pandas dataframes or Pillow images. In many cases this might not matter, but when creating sophisticated large computational packages, the level of interoperability that Julia provides is both incredibly empowering and as of yet unsurpassed.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
What the heck? Before making a claim like this you better define what you mean by "succeed" and what you mean by "normal timeframe". Julia has been around since 2010-ish. The equivalent timeframe for python was late-90s. The federal reserve bank uses (used?) Julia to model economics... Jokes about whether that is a succeed or fail for society at large, aside, it's hard to argue that adoption by at least one very significant player doesn't constitute success for a PL.
- martinsmit 4y ago
  I don't think such a defensive response is necessary. Julia's claims have been rather lofty since the beginning and the degree to which they have been achieved is different to everyone. Without defining more precisely what succeeding and the timeframe means it is difficult to know what OP was after but the fed example stands well on its own.
andrewl-hn 4y ago
Rust is keeping macOS Arm as Tier 2 as well, mostly not because of lack of interest but because CI platforms can’t support all the demand for Arm builds. MacStadium, Azure, AWS and others keep adding extra capacity but the build queues are still too long. So you either promote Arm Mac as tier 1, but now every PR takes extra hours to get merged, or you keep it at tier 2 for now and only build on Arm, say, once a day. Rust developers choose the later, because with their commit traffic they can’t afford such delays. As the build machines capacity increases arm macOS will be promoted to Tier 1. Don’t read too much into tiers. Tier 2 is still pretty well supported from a language user perspective. Julia situation is pretty much the same.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  We actually have a stack of M1 mac minis on top of a refrigerator to run CI. It's working pretty well for how janky it is.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

MacOS on ARM is technically tier 2, but we expect to promote it to tier 1 within a month or so. Basically we just want to make sure that 1.8 is as stable on M1 as we think it is. Until you have thousands of users testing everything, it's hard to declare confidently that everything works perfectly.

jakobnissen 4y ago

You might be right that Julia's sky high ambitions make it seem like a failure no matter what it does. I mean, it could have strived for just being a pleasant dynamic language with a fast amortized running time, and then it would have succeeded in 2018. But is it not better to both achieve you mediocre goals and also have extremely ambitious goals that may still be achieved, than merely having mediocre goals? I don't really agree that Julia right now doesn't have anything to show for its huge amibitions. In my opinion it's already the best language for science by quite a large margin. I understand it still lacks some tooling, reliability and deployment options to be attractive for many industrial clients (though Julia is already making inroads in industry - I have an old friend from college who uses Julia in production). It's also understandable that some people used it and found the latency unacceptable. The thing is - there is no reason to believe that tooling, reliability and deployment options won't come around. The stuff is being built. It's just happening "too" slowly right now.

leephillips 4y ago

You may have a particular measure of success in mind, but it seems to me that Julia has already succeeded: it is a new language for scientific computing that met its goals of providing high level abstractions and an expressive syntax while not compromising on performance. Its public release was in 2012 and it’s already one of only four languages used in high-performance scientific computing. Of course, in many areas its ecosystem is immature; but in others, such as differential equation solving, it’s a leader.

Mikeb85 4y ago

This. I was hoping Julia would be a quicker and more pleasant R. Instead it's turning into a super ambitious language that wants to be as fast as C++ but that makes it slightly less pleasant and useful than R. And if I need C++ speed I can just write C++...

jakobnissen 4y ago
> And if I need C++ speed I can just write C++... Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but surely you can't "just write C++". If you could, why would you ever use R, which is way slower, less backwards compatible and can't be shipped as a binary? I'm guessing you use R because it's easier to use than C++, interactive, and quicker to get stuff done in. That sounds to me like a list of criteria where Julia should aspire to beating R - if we can.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  With RCpp writing a function in C++ that you can then use from R is easy. So you do as much as you can in R, then if you reach a bottleneck, use a lil CPP, then R. It's still nice.
  - krastanov 4y ago
    Same with python. But then you have the following problem: How do you use tools that were designed to exploit the introspection of these languages when you have C++ submodules? This is called "the two language problem", and it is not just about ergonomics (e.g. you do not seem to have issues with the ergonomics of this approach). Rather the issue is that now I can not have a library that introspects my R code and performs automatic differentiation or some other advanced compile pass over my code, because not all of the code is written in R. This is also why most of the advanced SciPy functionality can not be used with Tensorflow, or use Jax's autodiff feature with Pandas dataframes or Pillow images. In many cases this might not matter, but when creating sophisticated large computational packages, the level of interoperability that Julia provides is both incredibly empowering and as of yet unsurpassed.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

What the heck? Before making a claim like this you better define what you mean by "succeed" and what you mean by "normal timeframe". Julia has been around since 2010-ish. The equivalent timeframe for python was late-90s. The federal reserve bank uses (used?) Julia to model economics... Jokes about whether that is a succeed or fail for society at large, aside, it's hard to argue that adoption by at least one very significant player doesn't constitute success for a PL.

martinsmit 4y ago
I don't think such a defensive response is necessary. Julia's claims have been rather lofty since the beginning and the degree to which they have been achieved is different to everyone. Without defining more precisely what succeeding and the timeframe means it is difficult to know what OP was after but the fed example stands well on its own.

andrewl-hn 4y ago

Rust is keeping macOS Arm as Tier 2 as well, mostly not because of lack of interest but because CI platforms can’t support all the demand for Arm builds. MacStadium, Azure, AWS and others keep adding extra capacity but the build queues are still too long. So you either promote Arm Mac as tier 1, but now every PR takes extra hours to get merged, or you keep it at tier 2 for now and only build on Arm, say, once a day. Rust developers choose the later, because with their commit traffic they can’t afford such delays. As the build machines capacity increases arm macOS will be promoted to Tier 1. Don’t read too much into tiers. Tier 2 is still pretty well supported from a language user perspective. Julia situation is pretty much the same.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
We actually have a stack of M1 mac minis on top of a refrigerator to run CI. It's working pretty well for how janky it is.