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

Julia 1.9

julialang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: Julia 1.9

#111

Post by geokon »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #75
geokon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to detract from everything else.. I've gotta say, that's the most confusing library name possible. First I thought it's a website about Julia plotting libraries. Then I thought it's a new Julia default plotting interface (with actual plotting libraries as backends). Then after I saw the code I realized that it's a library that literally called "plots"... I'm sure it's great SEO though

Are you referring to Plots.jl? All Julia libraries end with a .jl in their name; sort of like how many Python libraries start with `py`, and Rust libraries have `rs` as a suffix. Having it be universal makes it more consistent, and leaves the rest of the name to be completely about the content of the package. In my experience/opinion, that has lead to better package names (though Julia's package naming policies also…

the `.jl` was in effect dropped. Tbh, I landed on the page and started to skim it and it was highly confusing..

Just try to read the landing page without realizing "Plots" is a proper name :))

"juliaplots.org" - looks like a website about plotting in Julia

"Plots - powerful convenience for visualization in Julia" I guess they are...

"Almost everything in Plots is done by specifying plot attributes." I guess you could abstract all plotting that way.. interesting take

"Intro to Plots in Julia" an introduction to plotting in Julia!

"Plots is a visualization interface and toolset" I guess that's a way to think about plotting.. kinda philosophical.. but okay

Only when I got to this sentence "Plots might be the last plotting package you ever learn." did I realize this was the actual proper name of the library :))

I can also imagine using the name in conversation would lead to ridiculous things like "You should making your plots with plots" etc.

Anyway, it's just a bit confusing when you skim it. It's gotta be one of the most unusual library names I've seen

Re: Julia 1.9

#112

Post by cookieperson »

Sukera wrote: post #104
cookieperson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a decent one. Compilation of even small size projects easily took hours as of a year ago. All while people were screaming about how good it was. The equivalent code in other languages would be statically compiled in milliseconds. The size of the binaries was also thousands of times bigger...

It would be great if you could share such an example work load - such big examples are often few and far between, even though they are VERY good for debugging compilation performance.

Grab any project you have with more than 2k lines, multiple dependencies and run package compiler on it. Wait an hour, hopefully it didn't barf irreconcilably and check the file size.

Re: Julia 1.9

#113

Post by cookieperson »

cjalmeida wrote: post #103
cookieperson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean how? Something in base changes, the author of a package didn't put strict enough compatibility on their package and now you can't use the package. It's especially great when this sort of thing happens after spending ten minutes waiting for precompilation an hour for your time to first gradient and three days for a run to complete and you trusted the tool to let you write the results to a CSV using th…

Counter anecdote, I had to go back to a quite complex project that a was developed in 1.5, 3 years ago, hundreds of dependencies. Upgrading to 1.9 RC2 required changing a single dep (Light raps to the drop-in Graphs) and a single line (a library changed the return from a String to a StringView)

You're incredibly lucky. Even minor version bumps have left me up shit creek in production with deadlines.

Re: Julia 1.9

#114

Post by tastyminerals2 »

I like to explore alternatives to Python and Julia has been one of the tools I am waiting to become mature enough to actually invest some time in. But every time I start reading threads, I see the comments from actual users reporting about half an hour minutes and “coffee time” project compilation. Then the dreaded ecosystem problem. Then I think to myself, well, it’s not the time yet.

Also, I wish Julia was as popular in Europe as it is overseas.

Re: Julia 1.9

#115

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

tastyminerals2 wrote: post #106
jbieler wrote: post #43

This makes a big difference in usability, before loading a big project was almost in the "coffee time" category, now it's more "wait a few seconds". It helps a lot to make the tool feel more responsive.

So, you mean that loading a bigger project in Julia was more or less equal to compiling it with some language like C++? And you had to do it every single time in order to work with the project? This doesn’t sound too good tbo.

It isn't. That said, it's not as bad as it sounds at first because there are tools like Revise.jl which let you change code without recompiling.

Re: Julia 1.9

#116

Post by cookieperson »

Sukera wrote: post #101
cookieperson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean how? Something in base changes, the author of a package didn't put strict enough compatibility on their package and now you can't use the package. It's especially great when this sort of thing happens after spending ten minutes waiting for precompilation an hour for your time to first gradient and three days for a run to complete and you trusted the tool to let you write the results to a CSV using th…

Can you be more specific? As is, it's hard to follow what the issue was that you encountered.

At this point the only thing I can say is. Have you ever been a Julia user? Or are you actively developing Julia? If you are actively developing Julia, yea sure pull down the feature branch after someone's reported a bug, hot fix your toml to point too some specific version after reading ten diffs to be sure you have the right one, maybe stand up your own package server or pay 50k for one from julia computing, recompile Julia itself and everything is totally fine! If it's not no big deal just stomp over the type with your own code, yay. Maybe that's even part of your job. If you're a user expecting to do development and receive updates on packages or language, all I'll say is best of luck.

Re: Julia 1.9

#117

Post by tastyminerals2 »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #115
tastyminerals2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you mean that loading a bigger project in Julia was more or less equal to compiling it with some language like C++? And you had to do it every single time in order to work with the project? This doesn’t sound too good tbo.

It isn't. That said, it's not as bad as it sounds at first because there are tools like Revise.jl which let you change code without recompiling.

I see. It’s a separate library, right? :) I hope this information is part of Julia tutorial.

Re: Julia 1.9

#118

Post by cookieperson »

tastyminerals2 wrote: post #114

I like to explore alternatives to Python and Julia has been one of the tools I am waiting to become mature enough to actually invest some time in. But every time I start reading threads, I see the comments from actual users reporting about half an hour minutes and “coffee time” project compilation. Then the dreaded ecosystem problem. Then I think to myself, well, it’s not the time yet. Also, I wish Julia was as popul…

Honestly, I'd stick with python or learn a statically compiled language to broaden your world. I spent years in the Julia situation and it's more of a cult than anything else. If you ever end up with a job asking for Julia(not likely), you can pick it up in a week or so of free time after some muscle memory kicks in.

Re: Julia 1.9

#119

Post by nunuvit »

aborsy wrote: post #6

Matlab users should switch to Julia. It’s a real programming language, and better in many ways. I provide the option of Julia in my tutorials. Students are lazy, and don’t want to explore something new. Most of them stick with matlab. What prevents matlab users from switching? The syntax is similar.

Intentional or not, I enjoy how humorously provocative this comment is.

It's not possible to understand why someone would prefer Matlab through a software engineer's lense. Our jobs are different and a real programming language isn't anywhere on our list of needs or wants for matrix laboratory work. We actually prefer semantics like copy-on-write and features like dynamically adding fields to structs at runtime. It fits our workflow better, and that's ultimately what matters most.

I'm sure one day I'll add Julia to the list of real programming languages that I've used to write a library, but I'll still wrap it and call it from Matlab just like everything else.

Re: Julia 1.9

#120

Post by jrockway »

cookieperson wrote: post #80
geokon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could probably run Termux and launch a REPL from the command line?

Great way to eat a quarter gig of RAM before doing anything on a small compute device...

Probably less RAM than the average browser tab uses. 250MB of RAM? I've forgotten how to count that low.

Today's smartphone has higher specs than my $10,000 workstation from 10 years ago.

Post reply on HN