151–160 of 175 posts
1000x sounds nice, but can you trust the results? Also, why doesn't the funding go to more general linear algebra (and related) solver software, which can then be used in many physics packages?
I enjoy seeing this sort of press for Julia. One thing I’ll say for the language is that it is good with elegant high level abstractions for productivity while at the same time being able to go as low-level as you need for optimization. My company uses Julia for our text structuring ML. From go we communicate with the Julia binary using protobufs. I have no complaints and have enjoyed my experience with Julia.
Are you doing your NLP with Flux?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had to leave a company over that. I had made a personal fpga construct generator for various easily parameterizable modules. It worked pretty well but it was a mess and needed to be redone pretty badly, but it was good enough. I shared it upon request with a couple of engineers and before I knew it there were probably 25 EEs using it. They wanted "more" and I told them it was a personal tool and they were more than…
If they didn't lay claim to the IP, you should polish it and offer it for sale, or use it as interview material at someplace developing similar technology.
Why not Haskel? There are a bunch of projects on that front, too
If you want to see next generation circuit simulation and automation that already working check out JITX. The simulator is using their advanced LB Stanza language which similar if not better than Julia[1]. This is the same team from Berkeley that proposed CHISEL and FIRRTL.
Other promising efforts on next generation digital and analog circuit design are from MLIR by LLVM team and LLHD from ETH Zurich [2][3].
[1]http://lbstanza.org/ [2]https://github.com/llvm/circt [3]http://llhd.io/
Call me skeptical but to claim 1000x improvement for circuit simulation is at least hyperbole or outright lying. I will love to be proven wrong though. This by the fact that Julia is still depending on third party numerical libraries, e.g. OpenBLAS that depends on faster numerical languages like Fortran. If you want to see next generation circuit simulation and automation that already working check out JITX. The simu…
One additional point: Julia depends on OpenBLAS not because Fortran is faster, but because doing the architecture tuning for all supported architectures and sizes is a bit of a pain and for standard BLAS problems there's very little reason to switch. We do have pure Julia packages that outperform OpenBLAS, but nobody has gone through the effort of replacing the base usage of BLAS usage and completing the pure Julia packages to achieve 100% API coverage. There's just no good reason to as long as the vendor BLAS packages (or OpenBLAS) work fine.
A modern circuit simulator, that has a fully featured programable API, that can be run from a real modern programming language, would be a dream. Every simulator i have used has been pretty limited in that way, or at least those features were not well advertized. Even the insanely expensive ones. I mean the most expensive ones (like $100K liscense type deals, like Cadence) are if anything even less modern from a user…
I mean ... it's a really nice tool, they are giving away from free anyways ... if they OpenSourced it, the kind of feature you describe here (and which I've been sorely missing as well) would be a no-brainer to implement.
Not to mention all the other enhancements the community could and would bring to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been using LTSpice for the last decade or so and am just fine simulating everything from Buck to current sense circuits to battery monitoring systems to HBridge. Don’t know what your beef is with LTSpice but still can’t get around the fact you quit your discipline for the lack of a better tool. If you didn’t like what you had to deal with why didn’t you pivot to CS and invent a better simulation tool. Just saying.
> still can’t get around the fact you quit your discipline for the lack of a better tool. When people are at the very beginning of some path, they have almost no attachment to it and the smallest nudge one way or the other can change their course. Think about how many people say, "If it wasn't for I would have never gotten into ."
I don't work as an Electronics engineer any more but I still have a significant interest.
Call me skeptical but to claim 1000x improvement for circuit simulation is at least hyperbole or outright lying. I will love to be proven wrong though. This by the fact that Julia is still depending on third party numerical libraries, e.g. OpenBLAS that depends on faster numerical languages like Fortran. If you want to see next generation circuit simulation and automation that already working check out JITX. The simu…
Those efforts are quite different, focusing primarily on the design side with a focus on digital, while our effort is on ML-accelerated simulation of continuous time analog domain problems. I've met Chris Latter many times, and I'm pleased to see him work on tooling improvement in this space. He has a very good design sense for what compilers ought to look like. I've also met Patrick Li and we had an extensive discus…
Don't get me wrong I'm not dismissing your work, I'm just dismissal of the outrages 1000x claim, as they say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"(ECREE). I believe Chris Lattner and Patrick Li will probably cringe to hear the 1000x claim ;-). Like I've mentioned before, I love to be proven wrong.
Regarding OpenBLAS, it will be very good to have native Julia alternative as you've claimed. It is nothing new to be better than OpenBLAS since D language has done it with probably less than 10x (100x?) man power compared to Julia several years back[1].
[1]http://blog.mir.dlang.io/glas/benchmark/openblas/2016/09/23/...