DataFrames.jl VS julia

I don't think we've seen the final state of it though. v1.9 really gives people the proper tools for solving latency problems. Before, invalidations hurt a little, but it was also kind of a wash because LLVM code didn't precompile, so you could spend time setting up a Snoopprecompile and fix some invalidations and end up LLVM bound saving 1 second out of 20. But with package images it's almost always better to fix precompilation. The only thing hampering time much now is the `using` time went up, but as mentioned in the Reddit post there's a lot of ideas for what to do there. The other thing is package extensions, which cut down the amount of code to load. There's tons of PRs floating around the ecosystem turning things into extensions, and thus cutting down the overall code that is actually ran and loaded.

This means that in a few months, people will start to see some major tangible benefits from following the compilation improvement practices laid out here and https://sciml.ai/news/2022/09/21/compile_time/. I think then you'll have a lot more people start to take all of these new tools seriously and it will be standard to incorporate them into packages. Right now they are still kind of niche things for packages with known TTFX problems, but I think come v1.9 you'll see every major package use all of these methods.

> Different packages are affected differently

I think this is one of the pieces that's effected by this. I don't think "Julia has become optimised for running Plots.jl" is quite correct. Julia's compilation and runtime is much more optimized for well-inferred code, which Plots.jl is not. However, the compiler developers have been using Plots.jl as a test case for all of these new tools, and therefore its SnoopPrecompile and invalidations have gotten some dramatic improvements because those required ecosystem changes I mentioned are being done by the compiler team for this specific package. Plots.jl had things like precompilation snooping way back before there was even a package for it, the earliest I know of was around v1.0. Meanwhile, DataFrames.jl only setup its precompilation snooping 7 months ago (https://github.com/JuliaData/DataFrames.jl/pull/3182), which I would presume was just in time for the v1.8 mark on your plot and is one of the big reasons for having a sudden drop (which continues into v1.9 because of package images).

What I mean to say then is that, I think all packages will get the improvements we've seen from Plots.jl, but package authors will need to update their packages in order for that to happen. Some packages have already done this, many have not.

IJulia also supports viewing and manipulating tables. To create a table, first install the DataFrames.jl package by running the following command in a new cell:

It were just a few percents of all possible manipulations that you can do with data using DataFrames.jl library. Read more about it in the documentation.

DataFrames.jl

DataFrames.jl and XLSX.jl for JSON, CSV, and XLSX files

Julia also has the CSV.jl library for reading/writing csv files, the DataFrames.jl library for manipulating data like pandas, and Images.jl for image processing/analysis. However, since Julia is so much newer than Python, the Julia libraries are almost never as feature rich as their Python counterparts.

Looks like it's single threaded according to this open issue: https://github.com/JuliaData/DataFrames.jl/issues/2626

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...