Distributions.jl VS RecursiveFactorization.jl

If you look at Julia open source projects you'll see that the projects tend to have a lot more contributors than the Python counterparts, even over smaller time periods. A package for defining statistical distributions has had 202 contributors (https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl), etc. Julia Base even has had over 1,300 contributors (https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia) which is quite a lot for a core language, and that's mostly because the majority of the core is in Julia itself.

This is one of the things that was noted quite a bit at this SIAM CSE conference, that Julia development tends to have a lot more code reuse than other ecosystems like Python. For example, the various machine learning libraries like Flux.jl and Lux.jl share a lot of layer intrinsics in NNlib.jl (https://github.com/FluxML/NNlib.jl), the same GPU libraries (https://github.com/JuliaGPU/CUDA.jl), the same automatic differentiation library (https://github.com/FluxML/Zygote.jl), and of course the same JIT compiler (Julia itself). These two libraries are far enough apart that people say "Flux is to PyTorch as Lux is to JAX/flax", but while in the Python world those share almost 0 code or implementation, in the Julia world they share >90% of the core internals but have different higher levels APIs.

If one hasn't participated in this space it's a bit hard to fathom how much code reuse goes on and how that is influenced by the design of multiple dispatch. This is one of the reasons there is so much cohesion in the community since it doesn't matter if one person is an ecologist and the other is a financial engineer, you may both be contributing to the same library like Distances.jl just adding a distance function which is then used in thousands of places. With the Python ecosystem you tend to have a lot more "megapackages", PyTorch, SciPy, etc. where the barrier to entry is generally a lot higher (and sometimes requires handling the build systems, fun times). But in the Julia ecosystem you have a lot of core development happening in "small" but central libraries, like Distances.jl or Distributions.jl, which are simple enough for an undergrad to get productive in a week but is then used everywhere (Distributions.jl for example is used in every statistics package, and definitions of prior distributions for Turing.jl's probabilistic programming language, etc.).

...so the blog post you've posted 4 times contains a list of issues the author filed in 2020-2021... and at least for the handful I clicked, they indeed have (long) been sorted. e.g., Filed Dec 18th 2020, closed Dec 20th

Well, out of the issues mentioned, the ones still open can be categorized as (1) aliasing problems with mutable vectors https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/39385 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/39460 (2) not handling OffsetArrays correctly https://github.com/JuliaStats/StatsBase.jl/issues/646, https://github.com/JuliaStats/StatsBase.jl/issues/638, https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl/issues/1265 https://github.com/JuliaStats/StatsBase.jl/issues/643 (3) bad interaction of buffering and I/O redirection https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/36069 (4) a type dispatch bug https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/41096

So if you avoid mutable vectors and OffsetArrays you should generally be fine.

As far as the argument "Julia is really buggy so it's unusable", I think this can be made for any language - e.g. rand is not random enough, Java's binary search algorithm had an overflow, etc. The fixed issues have tests added so they won't happen again. Maybe copying the test suites from libraries in other languages would have caught these issues earlier, but a new system will have more bugs than a mature system so some amount of bugginess is unavoidable.

See the Distributions.jl package for an example .jl file structure: https://github.com/JuliaStats/Distributions.jl/tree/master/src

Structure your program around your domain specific constrains, e.g if you look at Distributions.jl they have folders for univariate/multivariate or discrete/continuous with a file per distribution containing the struct + all its methods :

What about the other benchmarks on the same site? https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/stable/Bio/BCR/ BCR takes about a hundred seconds and is pretty indicative of systems biological models, coming from 1122 ODEs with 24388 terms that describe a stiff chemical reaction network modeling the BCR signaling network from Barua et al. Or the discrete diffusion models https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/stable/Jumps/Dif... which are the justification behind the claims in https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.30.502135v1 that the O(1) scaling methods scale better than O(log n) scaling for large enough models? I mean.

> If you use special routines (BLAS/LAPACK, ...), use them everywhere as the respective community does.

It tests with and with BLAS/LAPACK (which isn't always helpful, which of course you'd see from the benchmarks if you read them). One of the key differences of course though is that there are some pure Julia tools like https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/RecursiveFactorization... which outperform the respective OpenBLAS/MKL equivalent in many scenarios, and that's one noted factor for the performance boost (and is not trivial to wrap into the interface of the other solvers, so it's not done). There are other benchmarks showing that it's not apples to apples and is instead conservative in many cases, for example https://github.com/SciML/SciPyDiffEq.jl#measuring-overhead showing the SciPyDiffEq handling with the Julia JIT optimizations gives a lower overhead than direct SciPy+Numba, so we use the lower overhead numbers in https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/stable/MultiLang....

> you must compile/write whole programs in each of the respective languages to enable full compiler/interpreter optimizations

You do realize that a .so has lower overhead to call from a JIT compiled language than from a static compiled language like C because you can optimize away some of the bindings at the runtime right? https://github.com/dyu/ffi-overhead is a measurement of that, and you see LuaJIT and Julia as faster than C and Fortran here. This shouldn't be surprising because it's pretty clear how that works?

I mean yes, someone can always ask for more benchmarks, but now we have a site that's auto updating tons and tons of ODE benchmarks with ODE systems ranging from size 2 to the thousands, with as many things as we can wrap in as many scenarios as we can wrap. And we don't even "win" all of our benchmarks because unlike for you, these benchmarks aren't for winning but for tracking development (somehow for Hacker News folks they ignore the utility part and go straight to language wars...).

If you have a concrete change you think can improve the benchmarks, then please share it at https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl. We'll be happy to make and maintain another.

Ask them to download Julia and try it, and file an issue if it is not fast enough. We try to have the latest available.

See for example: https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/RecursiveFactorization...

Julia defaults to OpenBLAS but libblastrampoline makes it so that `using MKL` flips it to MKL on the fly. See the JuliaCon video for more details on that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6hptekOR7s). The recursive comparison is against OpenBLAS/LAPACK and MKL, see this PR for some (older) details: https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl/pull/2... . What it really comes down to in the end is that OpenBLAS is rather bad, and MKL is optimized for Intel CPUs but not for AMD CPUs, so when the best CPUs are now all AMD CPUs, having a new set of BLAS tools and mixing that with recursive LAPACK tools is either as good or better on most modern systems. Then we see this in practice even when we build BLAS into Sundials for 1,000 ODE chemical reaction networks (https://benchmarks.sciml.ai/html/Bio/BCR.html).

>I hope those benchmarks are coming in hot

M1 is extremely good for PDEs because of its large cache lines.

https://github.com/SciML/DiffEqOperators.jl/issues/407#issue...

The JuliaSIMD tools which are internally used for BLAS instead of OpenBLAS and MKL (because they tend to outperform standard BLAS's for the operations we use https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl/pull/2...) also generate good code for M1, so that was giving us some powerful use cases right off the bat even before the heroics allowed C/Fortran compilers to fully work on M1.

Not necessarily true with Julia. Many libraries like DifferentialEquations.jl are Julia all of the way down because the pure Julia BLAS tools outperform OpenBLAS and MKL in certain areas. For example see:

https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl/pull/2...

So a stiff ODE solve is pure Julia, LU-factorizations and all.

Also, the major point is that BLAS has little to no role played here. Algorithms which just hit BLAS are very suboptimal already. There's a tearing step which reduces the problem to many subproblems which is then more optimally handled by pure Julia numerical linear algebra libraries which greatly outperform OpenBLAS in the regime they are in:

https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl#perfor...

And there are hooks in the differential equation solvers to not use OpenBLAS in many cases for this reason:

https://github.com/SciML/DiffEqBase.jl/blob/master/src/linea...

Instead what this comes out to is more of a deconstructed KLU, except instead of parsing to a single sparse linear solve you can do semi-independent nonlinear solves which are then spawning parallel jobs of small semi-dense linear solves which are handled by these pure Julia linear algebra libraries.

And that's only a small fraction of the details. But at the end of the day, if someone is thinking "BLAS", they are already about an order of magnitude behind on speed. The algorithms to do this effectively are much more complex than that.