←back to thread

ML needs a new programming language – Interview with Chris Lattner

(signalsandthreads.com)
311 points melodyogonna | 1 comments | 05 Sep 25 11:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.241s | source
Show context
postflopclarity ◴[05 Sep 25 13:59 UTC] No.45138679[source]▶
Julia could be a great language for ML. It needs more mindshare and developer attention though
replies(4): >>45138887 #>>45138911 #>>45139421 #>>45140214 #
numbers_guy ◴[05 Sep 25 14:18 UTC] No.45138911[source]▶
What makes Julia "great" for ML?
replies(3): >>45139000 #>>45139316 #>>45142213 #
postflopclarity ◴[05 Sep 25 14:26 UTC] No.45139000[source]▶
I would use the term "potentially great" rather than plain "great"

but all the normal marketing words: in my opinion it is fast, expressive, and has particularly good APIs for array manipulation

replies(1): >>45139131 #
numbers_guy ◴[05 Sep 25 14:38 UTC] No.45139131[source]▶
Interesting. I am experimenting with different ML ecosystems and wasn't really considering Julia at all but I put it on the list now.
replies(2): >>45139169 #>>45139451 #
1. macawfish ◴[05 Sep 25 15:07 UTC] No.45139451[source]▶
If I wanted to get into research ML, I'd pick Julia no doubt. It allows both conventional ML techniques where we throw tons of parameters at the problem, but additionally a more nimble style where we can train over ordinary functions.

Combine that with all the cutting edge applied math packages often being automatically compatible with the autodiff and GPU array backends, even if the library authors didn't think about that... it's a recipe for a lot of interesting possibilities.