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

Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

discourse.julialang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#71

Post by suavesito »

turndown wrote: post #23

IMO this is just not a great example on either side. As others have pointed out, the Julia implementation was refined to be 8x faster. The Mojo code has to run the CPython interpreter to run numpy.

The example Mojo code does not run the computations with numpy. It uses the extensions of Mojo to do it, testing the capabilities of this extensions, which are the ones who promises the speed up. I must admit otherwise that not a lot of work has been done to optimise it as the optimised Julia version.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#72

Post by wiz21c »

A bit OT but what is Julia's adoption rate nowadays ? I know there are people who thinks it's the best, others thinks it's not going to cut it, but well.. In your experience ? (my experience is: a little too slow to load, type hierarchies lead to unbearable error messages sometimes but looks like a serious attempt to replace whatever language in the math/physics/stats/... space)

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#73

Post by stellalo »

blacklion wrote: post #54

I'm sorry, but it is not benchmark, it is farce. One run, 7ms, 2ms? It is statistical fluctuation, not data, especially if it was run on "typical" developer laptop under "typical" session where browsers and other high-hitters are run in background and all these turbo-boosts and freq-governors are not turned off. You need OS where almost all software (including most system services) are killed, CPU frequency is fixed…

It’s not one run: they are using BenchmarkTools that provides macro to compute exactly the kind of statistics that you expect.

One can say anything, but the Julia community takes performance and benchmarking really seriously.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#74

Post by cswhnjidd »

wiz21c wrote: post #72

A bit OT but what is Julia's adoption rate nowadays ? I know there are people who thinks it's the best, others thinks it's not going to cut it, but well.. In your experience ? (my experience is: a little too slow to load, type hierarchies lead to unbearable error messages sometimes but looks like a serious attempt to replace whatever language in the math/physics/stats/... space)

I've been using it at work for almost 2 years now. I haven't used python personally since.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#75

Post by DNF2 »

suavesito wrote: post #71
turndown wrote: post #23

IMO this is just not a great example on either side. As others have pointed out, the Julia implementation was refined to be 8x faster. The Mojo code has to run the CPython interpreter to run numpy.

The example Mojo code does not run the computations with numpy. It uses the extensions of Mojo to do it, testing the capabilities of this extensions, which are the ones who promises the speed up. I must admit otherwise that not a lot of work has been done to optimise it as the optimised Julia version.

Why are you saying that? The Mojo code seems to have the same optimizations as the Julia code.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#76

Post by sundarurfriend »

torrance wrote: post #6

Whilst the Julia version currently beats Mojo, I fully expect both to approach basically the same performance with enough tinkering, and for that performance to be on par with C or Fortran. A more interesting question is which version is more elegant, ‘obvious’ and maintainable. (Deeply familiar with both, but money is on Julia).

> A more interesting question is which version is more elegant, ‘obvious’ and maintainable. (Deeply familiar with both, but money is on Julia).

Yes, more than raw speed, what impresses me is that the version of code in [1] is already a few times faster than the Mojo code - because that's pretty basic Julia code that anyone with a little Julia experience could write, and maintain easily.

The later versions with LoopVectorization require more specialized knowledge , and get into the "how can we tune this particular benchmark" territory for me (I don't know how to evaluate the Mojo code in this regard as yet, how 'obvious' it would be to an everyday Mojo developer). So [1] is a more impressive demonstration of how an average developer can write very performant code in Julia.

[1] https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-mojo-mandelbrot-benc...

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#77

Post by eigenspace »

blacklion wrote: post #54

I'm sorry, but it is not benchmark, it is farce. One run, 7ms, 2ms? It is statistical fluctuation, not data, especially if it was run on "typical" developer laptop under "typical" session where browsers and other high-hitters are run in background and all these turbo-boosts and freq-governors are not turned off. You need OS where almost all software (including most system services) are killed, CPU frequency is fixed…

This is such a classic strongly opinionated, inflammatory, and fundamentally ignorant Hacker News comment.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#78

Post by eigenspace »

dan-robertson wrote: post #47
eigenspace wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by lisp-like? If you mean “primarily uses S-expressions” then I guess I dont really see why that’s so important to you. If you mean a language that is semantically similar to lisps and learned a lot of the important lessons that Lisp taught the programming world, I think Julia is one of the Lispiest languages in this space right now. The syntax may not be S-expression based on the surface, but our Ex…

I think the point the GP is making is that Julia (and other lisps) lost in this space.

While I consider julia lispy, I do think it's quite a reach to call it a lisp. I also think it's quite a reach to say julia lost in this space. It's still working it's way up.

Julia is growing and evolving and finding new users and niches. It certainly hasn't 'won', but it's a bit early to call it a loss.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#79

Post by IshKebab »

anoy8888 wrote: post #38

It is still fascinating that lisp languages lost to python for AI and data processing and now pretty much everything else. In a perfect world , we would be using lisp or lisp like languages for everything

Doesn't sound very perfect to me. I'm no fan of Python but it is at least readable. Lisp is not.

Re: Julia and Mojo Mandelbrot Benchmark

#80

Post by baggepinnen »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #53
ubj wrote: post #4

In my opinion, the issue that will make more of a difference in the long run is Mojo's first-class support for AoT compiled binaries (as well as JIT compilation). Julia's poor AoT support (with small binaries) is a major Achilles heel. I really wish that the Julia developers had taken that more seriously earlier on.

FWIW, the core Julia developers seem to be taking this more and more seriously, and AoT compilation to small binaries seems more of a "when" question than an "if" at this point. Open source development - without multi-million dollar support from outside - is unpredictable, but I wouldn't be surprised if a year from now, writing a restricted subset of Julia allowed you AoT compilation to reasonable binaries (and not s…

You mean investment like this? https://info.juliahub.com/juliahub-receives-13-million-strat...

You can imagine what a company like Boeing might be interested in when it comes to a programming language.

Post reply on HN