Did #julialang end up kinda stalling or at least plateau-ing lower than hoped?

I know it’s got its community and dedicated users and has continued development.

But without being in that space, and speculating now at a distance, it seems it might be an interesting case study in a tech/lang that just didn’t have landing spot it could arrive at in time as the tech-world & “data science” reshuffled while julia tried to grow … ?

Can a language ever solve a “two language” problem?

@programming

  • Juan Luis@social.juanlu.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    @maegul @programming Maybe nobody (save for the Julia developers) ever cared about the “two language problem”. I see folks are just happy writing high performance tools in Rust with Python wrappers.

    In any case, I’m happy that the Julia folks gave birth to things like DifferentialEquations.jl, truly a piece of art. Anything that helps scientists and engineers move away from MATLAB is welcome.

      • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        @tschenkel @astrojuanlu @programming

        I’d suppose part of the problem might be that there’s a somewhat hidden 3rd category of user that “feels” whatever added complexity there is in a two-language lang like julialang and has no real need for performant “product” code.

        And that lack of adoption amongst this cohort and your first enforces lang separation.

        I may be off base with whether there’s a usability trade off, but I’d bet there’s at least the perception of one.

        • Hrefna (DHC)@hachyderm.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          @maegul

          Considering, it may be worth highlighting that tools like Jax exist as well (https://github.com/google/jax). These have even become an expected integration in some toolkits (e.g., numpyro)

          It may not be the most elegant approach, but there’s a lot of power in something that “mostly just works and then we can optimize narrowly once we find a problem”

          It doesn’t make a solution that solves this mess bad, but I do wonder about it being a narrow niche

          @tschenkel @astrojuanlu @programming

          • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            @hrefna @tschenkel @astrojuanlu @programming

            Yea … it seems that things like this are part of Julia’s problem …

            that for many the “two language problem” is actually the “two language solution” that’s working just fine and as intended, or as you say, well enough to make an ecosystem jump seem too costly.

            • Hrefna (DHC)@hachyderm.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              @tschenkel

              Mostly its advantage as far as arrays go is its ability to push things out to an accelerator (GPU) without making code changes. Also its JIT functionality is a good bit faster than using pytorch’s (at least anecdotally).

              My experience with it is not at all related to ODEs (more things like MCMC) and I have no direct experience with its gradient functionality and only limited with its auto vectorization, so take my experience with a grain of salt.

              @maegul @astrojuanlu @programming

          • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            @tschenkel @astrojuanlu @programming

            I understood … I was reaching for some shorthand (500 char limits FTW!)

            There’s probably a good amount of work that exists somewhere between your needs and “could be a spreadsheet”, where caring about performance isn’t an issue or hasn’t surfaced yet, either practically or culturally (where the boundaries of what research *can* be done “tomorrow” are of importance)

            BTW, cheers for all the info!!

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Anything that helps scientists and engineers move away from MATLAB is welcome.

      The MATLAB language may be pretty bad but IMO that’s not what makes MATLAB good. Rather it’s:

      1. Every signal processing / maths function is available and well documented. I don’t know how well Julia does on this but I know I wouldn’t want to use Python for the kinds of things I used MATLAB for (medical imaging). You don’t have to faff with pip to get a hilbert transform or whatever…

      2. The plotting functionality is top notch. You can easily plot millions of points and it’s fast and responsive. Loads of plotting options. I just haven’t found anything that comes close. Every other option I’ve tried (a lot) only works for small datasets.

      • Juan Luis@social.juanlu.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        @FizzyOrange The problem with Python for signal processing and stuff like that is not pip (I know it’s a meme by now, but it’s really not that bad) but rather, the fact that some SciPy subpackages are barely maintained

    • maegul@hachyderm.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      @astrojuanlu @programming

      > Maybe nobody (save for the Julia developers) ever cared about the “two language problem”

      Yea, it’s what prompted my post. I saw in a rust forum push back on the two language thing but from the lower level side (where they were arguing about introducing lazier memory management facilities on the basis that you should just use swift/Python etc).

      And re MATLAB … absolutely! This is not a diss against Julia at all.