Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julia 1.0

julialang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 446 posts

Re: Julia 1.0

#101

Post by ChrisRackauckas »

samuell wrote: post #83

Does it support light-weight threads (co-routines) channels yet? (and if it does, does it multiplex them on mulitple CPUs?). I had a look a few years ago, and then it did not. I think this is so badly needed to get an easy route to pipeline paralellism, which is simply everywhere in today's data analysis "pipelines".

Yes it does:

https://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/base/multi-threading/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/parallel-computi...

It's listed as experimental since in a 1.x released it's planned to be changed to work on top of the task interface.

Re: Julia 1.0

#102

Post by myrryr »

samuell wrote: post #83

Does it support light-weight threads (co-routines) channels yet? (and if it does, does it multiplex them on mulitple CPUs?). I had a look a few years ago, and then it did not. I think this is so badly needed to get an easy route to pipeline paralellism, which is simply everywhere in today's data analysis "pipelines".

Not yet, soon.

It's multi threading model is mostly multi process. Mostly because people write code to run on clusters on machines, not just single ones.

co-routines, channels, etc will be nice, and I expect not too far away.

Re: Julia 1.0

#103

Post by simonbyrne »

bsdubernerd wrote: post #39

I'm a quite happy Julia user, however I feel there are still some warts in the language that should have warranted a bit more time before banging 1.0 on the badge. Exception handling in julia is poor, which reminds me of how exceptions are (not/poorly) handled in R. Code can trap exceptions, but not directly by type as you _would_ expect. Instead, the user is left to check the type of the exception in the catch block…

I don't think _any_ language has got exception handling handling right yet, despite a lot of effort. The problems are particularly apparent in parallel and multithreaded programs.

That said, I am optimistic Julia will have a good solution at some point: contextual dispatch, a la Cassette.jl, enables just the sought of interventions you want for error handling. I'm not quite sure what the result will look like, but I imagine you will see some experimentation in this direction in the near future.

Re: Julia 1.0

#104

Post by johnsea »

LittlePeter wrote: post #82

Every release I am downloading Julia and trying to wrestle through some tutorials. Every time (0.4.0, 0.6.0, 1.0.0) I get stuck at some error, usually during the pre-compiling of some dependency. For example, I have downloaded julia-1.0.0. I try to follow this tutorial here, linked in this post by someone: http://juliadb.org/latest/manual/tutorial.html Then I do this and get an error: julia> using JuliaDB [ Info: Pre…

> Every time (0.4.0, 0.6.0, 1.0.0) I get stuck

You should have tried 0.4.2, 0.6.3, 1.0.1. Motto: Don't start too fast and be slow giving up ;-)

Re: Julia 1.0

#105

Post by ChrisRackauckas »

LittlePeter wrote: post #82

Every release I am downloading Julia and trying to wrestle through some tutorials. Every time (0.4.0, 0.6.0, 1.0.0) I get stuck at some error, usually during the pre-compiling of some dependency. For example, I have downloaded julia-1.0.0. I try to follow this tutorial here, linked in this post by someone: http://juliadb.org/latest/manual/tutorial.html Then I do this and get an error: julia> using JuliaDB [ Info: Pre…

It was literally released today. Of course the packages don't work yet...

Re: Julia 1.0

#106

Post by montecarl »

peatmoss wrote: post #62
Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree with your comments about error handling. It’s far from ideal in non-interactive contexts. It’s especially disappointing since you could easily imagine something like Julia replicating Python’s success at transitioning code from interaction (e.g. Jupyter notebook) to production. I initially defended the choice, but I now agree that 1-based indexing now seems like a poor choice since Julia has become some…

> 1-based indexing now seems like a poor choice since Julia has become something more than the original mission of a better MATLAB or Octave. It’s a, admittedly, minor tragedy of Julia’s success. I’m curious as to why this is a problem outside numerical computing. From my perspective, this is consistent with a long history of mathematics dealing with matrices that predates electronic computers. 0-based arrays are pop…

Dijkstra has a note on this: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...

Re: Julia 1.0

#107

Post by conjectures »

Julia is a great language and was really useful in my PhD.

The #1 requirement I have is the ability to make binaries for some program. You can compile a C program and get a binary. There's no practical equivalent for Julia at the moment and I think this limits its production potential.

Re: Julia 1.0

#108

Post by jandrese »

peatmoss wrote: post #79
kgwgk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the technical reason we started counting arrays at zero is that in the mid-1960’s, you could shave a few cycles off of a program’s compilation time on an IBM 7094. The social reason is that we had to save every cycle we could, because if the job didn’t finish fast it might not finish at all and you never know when you’re getting bumped off the hardware because the President of IBM just called and fuck your thesis,…

Wow, I hadn’t seen this before. The history of this feud goes back before C. Thank you for a fascinating read!

Even Dijkstra weighed in on this:

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd08xx/EWD831.PDF

Re: Julia 1.0

#110

Post by KenoFischer »

bsdubernerd wrote: post #39

I'm a quite happy Julia user, however I feel there are still some warts in the language that should have warranted a bit more time before banging 1.0 on the badge. Exception handling in julia is poor, which reminds me of how exceptions are (not/poorly) handled in R. Code can trap exceptions, but not directly by type as you _would_ expect. Instead, the user is left to check the type of the exception in the catch block…

Exception handling is one of the few subsystems that hasn't really had a revamp. It's probably one of the areas that'll get a good bit of thinking post 1.0.
Post reply on HN