5 ms·

I have a vague sense that in the era of ML/AI hype and the complex Python/C++ stack that makes it all possible, Cling and the ROOT project should somehow be mor

I have a vague sense that in the era of ML/AI hype and the complex Python/C++ stack that makes it all possible, Cling and the ROOT project should somehow be more visible? Is the project missing some VC driven marketing?

whizzter 3y ago
People who hype things use Python for coordination and most gruntwork is done by the GPU or C++ libraries anyhow so C++ doesn't help that much in the big picture. (And hype-people probably often aren't technical enough for C++)
- nologic01 3y ago
  I think there is a causality chain that goes something like this: hype people get attracted to where they see popularity, popularity requires exciting usability and results without much investment and such usability requires smart management of complexity (as there is no free lunch). In our context Python became popular because it has smartly hidden the complexity via C++ libraries. But while that approach is powerful it is not very flexible (you need to work within the rails of these libraries). People have tried inventing a new paradigm (julia) that combines usability with performance but it has not struck a chord (yet?). The latest effort being hyped is to double-down on python semantics and build a performant C-like superset (mojo). The interesting question regarding the ROOT project is whether you can stick close to the C++ universe yet build powerful tools that hide complexity. Its not trivial, e.g. would it automatically make good use of heterogeneous CPU's/GPU'? But its amusing to think that after CERN taught the world how to share data with the WWW project it might teach us next how to actually work with that data :-)
  - fiedzia 3y ago
    > People have tried inventing a new paradigm (julia) that combines usability with performance but it has not struck a chord For any non-scientific purpose, Julia is not attractive, so I doubt it will gain much more traction. > whether you can stick close to the C++ universe yet build powerful tools that hide complexity. Its not trivial, e.g. would it automatically make good use of heterogeneous CPU's/GPU That's where we are going. Technically being generic over CPU/GPU (for defined set of operations) is not hard, just takes work (and leaders in this domain are interested in keeping thing proprietary), but that's already work in progress. In general terms, copying Python usability (or 90% of it) is also simple and other languages head that way. Rust or Nim can come very close (when you have good set of libraries and pass the boilerplate).
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Julia main focus is scientific computing, and they aren't doing that bad, https://juliahub.com/case-studies https://juliahub.com/case-studies There have been other interactive environments for C++ that predate ROOT, but they were too resource intensive and the market killed them. Namely, Energize C++, which came out from Lucid as they pivoted away from Lisp Machines, applying the same kind of technology to C++, based on XEmacs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQQTScuApWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQQTScuApWk https://dreamsongs.com/Cadillac.html https://dreamsongs.com/Cadillac.html And the last version of Visual Age for C++, based on the Smalltalk development experience. http://www.edm2.com/index.php/VisualAge_C%2B%2B_4.0_Review http://www.edm2.com/index.php/VisualAge_C%2B%2B_4.0_Review https://books.google.de/books?id=ZwHxz0UaB54C&pg=PA206&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=ZwHxz0UaB54C&pg=PA206&redir...
    - lispm 3y ago
      Lucid was never developing for Lisp Machines. Their product was a portable Common Lisp system for UNIX machines. Later they developed a C++ development environment (C++ compiler, IDE with XEmacs and code infos in an object database).
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Sure, it is a common error I do referring to all those CL environments as "Lisp Machines".
        lispm 3y ago
        Lucid CL ran on top of a UNIX/C machine. A Lisp Machine is a whole machine itself.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Being pedantic, I already mentioned that is a common way I wrongly refer to them, hence the quotes.
cozzyd 3y ago
And then there's cppyy, also with ROOT heritage... https://cppyy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/history.html https://cppyy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/history.html

whizzter 3y ago

People who hype things use Python for coordination and most gruntwork is done by the GPU or C++ libraries anyhow so C++ doesn't help that much in the big picture. (And hype-people probably often aren't technical enough for C++)

nologic01 3y ago
I think there is a causality chain that goes something like this: hype people get attracted to where they see popularity, popularity requires exciting usability and results without much investment and such usability requires smart management of complexity (as there is no free lunch). In our context Python became popular because it has smartly hidden the complexity via C++ libraries. But while that approach is powerful it is not very flexible (you need to work within the rails of these libraries). People have tried inventing a new paradigm (julia) that combines usability with performance but it has not struck a chord (yet?). The latest effort being hyped is to double-down on python semantics and build a performant C-like superset (mojo). The interesting question regarding the ROOT project is whether you can stick close to the C++ universe yet build powerful tools that hide complexity. Its not trivial, e.g. would it automatically make good use of heterogeneous CPU's/GPU'? But its amusing to think that after CERN taught the world how to share data with the WWW project it might teach us next how to actually work with that data :-)
- fiedzia 3y ago
  > People have tried inventing a new paradigm (julia) that combines usability with performance but it has not struck a chord For any non-scientific purpose, Julia is not attractive, so I doubt it will gain much more traction. > whether you can stick close to the C++ universe yet build powerful tools that hide complexity. Its not trivial, e.g. would it automatically make good use of heterogeneous CPU's/GPU That's where we are going. Technically being generic over CPU/GPU (for defined set of operations) is not hard, just takes work (and leaders in this domain are interested in keeping thing proprietary), but that's already work in progress. In general terms, copying Python usability (or 90% of it) is also simple and other languages head that way. Rust or Nim can come very close (when you have good set of libraries and pass the boilerplate).
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Julia main focus is scientific computing, and they aren't doing that bad, https://juliahub.com/case-studies https://juliahub.com/case-studies There have been other interactive environments for C++ that predate ROOT, but they were too resource intensive and the market killed them. Namely, Energize C++, which came out from Lucid as they pivoted away from Lisp Machines, applying the same kind of technology to C++, based on XEmacs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQQTScuApWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQQTScuApWk https://dreamsongs.com/Cadillac.html https://dreamsongs.com/Cadillac.html And the last version of Visual Age for C++, based on the Smalltalk development experience. http://www.edm2.com/index.php/VisualAge_C%2B%2B_4.0_Review http://www.edm2.com/index.php/VisualAge_C%2B%2B_4.0_Review https://books.google.de/books?id=ZwHxz0UaB54C&pg=PA206&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=ZwHxz0UaB54C&pg=PA206&redir...
  - lispm 3y ago
    Lucid was never developing for Lisp Machines. Their product was a portable Common Lisp system for UNIX machines. Later they developed a C++ development environment (C++ compiler, IDE with XEmacs and code infos in an object database).
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Sure, it is a common error I do referring to all those CL environments as "Lisp Machines".
      - lispm 3y ago
        Lucid CL ran on top of a UNIX/C machine. A Lisp Machine is a whole machine itself.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        Being pedantic, I already mentioned that is a common way I wrongly refer to them, hence the quotes.

cozzyd 3y ago

And then there's cppyy, also with ROOT heritage... https://cppyy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/history.html https://cppyy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/history.html