cbkeller

9 ms·

31.
Running Julia bare-metal on an Arduino(seelengrab.github.io)
195 points by cbkeller 4y ago|26 comments
32.
by cbkeller 4y ago
I can appreciate that perspective for sure. Just to make sure we're on the same page though, it's perhaps worth clarifying that this particular integration issue isn't something you have to worry about every time you use two
33.
by cbkeller 4y ago
Well I don't think it's hard any more than writing any other sort of test in a given language. That doesn't mean it doesn't require expertise in that language.
34.
by cbkeller 4y ago
Sure, but that's a caveat that applies to testing in general, not something somehow special to composability. Bugs that only appear in edge cases or give wrong answers are always a concern when writing tests, that's nothing new. I
35.
by cbkeller 4y ago
The answer as far as I can see is to write integration tests when you want to use composability (and/or just check that the packages in question already have integration tests against each other -- increasingly many do). It's not
36.
by cbkeller 4y ago
Oh, nice!
37.
by cbkeller 4y ago
For it to silently fail of course though, he would have had to explicitly used the OffsetArrays package and explicitly switched all `Array`s to `OffsetArray`s (which hopefully you would notice) -- and then you would have to go ahead and use
38.
by cbkeller 4y ago
Personally I'd probably categorize most unit tests as verifying correctness (but only for the scenarios tested); integration tests may be more useful for finding incidental issues that you wouldn't have thought to test for directl
39.
by cbkeller 4y ago
I think it should be fine for performance AFAIU to use `eachindex` instead; at least I know `eachindex` plays nicely with LoopVectorization.jl with no performance costs there. That said, I think you're exactly right that people may won
40.
by cbkeller 4y ago
I actually wouldn't be surprised if the total number of tests run in the Julia ecosystem wasn't too different (thousands of packages with typically hundreds to thousands of unit tests, run on every commit and PR) -- virtually ever
41.
by cbkeller 4y ago
I don't see anything problematic in what Viral said here; I think it would be fair to say your initial take ("Julia has been the future of machine learning for 10 years and will stay as the future of machine learning for the next
42.
by cbkeller 4y ago
This seems hard to evaluate without a quantitative comparison to the abundance of bugs in the package ecosystems of other languages at the same age. So, for instance, how many correctness bugs existed (or, alternatively, had been found and
43.
by cbkeller 4y ago
For an array, you'd have to worry about row- vs column-major orientation if multidimensional, but for simple numeric vectors and base strings (which are just a collection of UInt8s in memory), it appears to be sufficient to merely pass
44.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Yeah, not frowned upon at all. StaticCompiler.jl [1] has made huge strides in the past few weeks actually thanks to Mason and Valentin (swapping in GPUCompiler as the backend); you can even compile to a tiny standalone binary without linkin
45.
by cbkeller 5y ago
And the "how" behind Octavian.jl is basically LoopVectorization.jl [1], which helps make optimal use of your CPU's SIMD instructions. Currently there can some nontrivial compilation latency with this approach, but since LV ul
46.
by cbkeller 5y ago
That sounds about like my experience too, only s/physics/geology/ :)
47.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Hmm, I would be interested to see where exactly it is that these Julia advocates have claimed it to be "the fastest language"
48.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Ah, so there are many things that it is hard to be absolutely certain of in geology, but changing Earth's orbit is at least very very hard; even the kinetic energy from things like the Chixulub impact are far too small to have a signif
49.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Ah, good questions. Although we are missing a lot of rock, paleontologists have spent a lot of time looking through the non-missing parts. So far, they have found a lot of really interesting things, such as the macroscopic soft-bodied fossi
50.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Erosion, and for that wet-based ice would be key, so thickness is quite important. Yes! There are a number of estimates on this from icesheet modelling; check out for example Fig. 5 in Donnadieu et al. 2003 [1] [1] https://doi.or
51.
by cbkeller 5y ago
I'm not aware of any time when that was a mainstream belief, but there might be a gap in my history-of-science knowledge. In any case, while we're currently in an "interglacial" period with respect to the Pleistocene gla
52.
by cbkeller 5y ago
I would love it, but no one has quite managed it yet! There are simulations of, e.g., plate motions, but even those get quite uncertain if you go back more than about a billion years. Forward models of the flow of the atmosphere, oceans, or
53.
by cbkeller 5y ago
That certainly doesn't help either! To some extent though, anthropogenic emissions are dangerous more for their rate than their absolute magnitude; in the long run, once we stop emitting, silicate weathering will take back over "s
54.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Older ocean crust does indeed generally subduct at a steeper angle! Relatedly, if you have ocean crust that is relatively young and hot enough but is still colliding with continental crust, then you can get "flat-slab" subduction
55.
by cbkeller 5y ago
That's great to hear, thank you!
56.
by cbkeller 5y ago
We are still in an icehouse period, yes! However, a few things may make it a bit harder for that to develop into a full snowball, currently: 1) While having continents at the poles makes it easier to have icesheets at all, it also makes it
57.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Yeah, the oldest ocean crust on Earth today is only about 180 million years old, and the older it gets the colder and denser (and thus more prone to subduct) it gets. And when ocean crust subducts it generally (with some caveats) takes the
58.
by cbkeller 5y ago
To start with the last part > How much rock would have to get scraped and pulverized into future magma to wipe out all evidence of a civilization? it would take a lot. Even in the snowballs, when we had ice on every continent, there are
59.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Short answer: it's complicated, and not a binary, but perhaps a gradual process of "becoming less of a mystery". The history of the subject is actually pretty interesting, and like most things in science gets more nuanced the
60.
by cbkeller 5y ago
Ah, so while there were ice sheets on every continent during these glaciations, there are actually quite a lot of places where sedimentary rocks survived the glaciations - perhaps as much as a fifth of the area of the continents (back-of-th

More ›