←back to thread

ML needs a new programming language – Interview with Chris Lattner

(signalsandthreads.com)
311 points melodyogonna | 4 comments | 05 Sep 25 11:33 UTC | HN request time: 1.801s | 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 #
singularity2001 ◴[05 Sep 25 14:16 UTC] No.45138887[source]▶
What's the current state of time to first plot and executable size? Last time it was several seconds to get a 200 MB hello world. I'm sure they are moving in the right direction the only questions is are they there yet?
replies(4): >>45139040 #>>45139081 #>>45139086 #>>45140797 #
ModernMech ◴[05 Sep 25 16:58 UTC] No.45140797[source]▶
I recently looked into making Julia binaries, and it's not at all a good process. They say it's supported, but it's not exactly as easy as "cargo build" to get a Julia binary out. And the build process involves creating this minimal version of Julia you're expected to ship with your binary, so build times were terrible. I don't know if that gets amortized though.

As far as the executable size, it was only 85kb in my test, a bouncing balls simulation. However, it required 300MB of Julia libraries to be shipped with it. About 2/3 of that is in libjulia-codegen.dll, libLLVM-16jl.dll. So you're shipping this chunky runtime and their LLVM backend. If you're willing to pay for that, you can ship a Julia executable. It's a better story than what Python offers, but it's not great if you want small, self-contained executables.

replies(1): >>45141231 #
1. postflopclarity ◴[05 Sep 25 17:34 UTC] No.45141231[source]▶
note that as a few other commenters have pointed out, this situation will improve greatly in 1.12 (although still many rough edges)
replies(1): >>45142982 #
2. ModernMech ◴[05 Sep 25 20:03 UTC] No.45142982[source]▶
Yeah, that's what I've been hearing about Julia for about 10 years now: "situation will improve greatly in the next version, but still many rough edges remain".

I've been involved in a few programming language projects, so I'm sympathetic as to how much work goes into one and how long they can take.

At the same time, it makes me wary of Julia, because it highlights that progress is very slow. I think Julia is trying to be too much at once. It's hard enough to be a dynamic, interactive language, but they also want to claim to be performant and compiled. That's a lot of complexity for a small team to handle and deliver on.

replies(2): >>45145407 #>>45146956 #
3. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[06 Sep 25 00:37 UTC] No.45145407[source]▶
Different things have been improving for the past 10 years. TTFX is in a good spot now, multithreading is in a pretty good spot now, GC issues for most people are basically solved. AOT compilation was pretty much the last big item that a lot of people wanted, and that has recently (within the last year) gotten to the point where the code exists, it's merged, and it will be releasing soon (and then spending the next year or two getting improved)
4. pjmlp ◴[06 Sep 25 05:58 UTC] No.45146956[source]▶
That has been the situation with many programming languages until they finally explode, including Python, which is 34 years old, and also was largely ignored for a decade until Zope in 2000's.