Petalisp VS StatsBase.jl

While not "as fast as C" (C is not the absolute pinnacle of performance), Common Lisp is incredibly fast compared to the majority of programming languages around today. There is even a huge amount of ongoing work being done to make it faster still. We are seeing many interesting projects that make better use of the hardware in your computer (e.g. https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp).

i think lisp-stat library is actually being developed. however one numerical cl library that doesnt get enough mention and is being constantly developed is petalisp for HPC

https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp

However, if you have a lisp library that puts those semantics to use, then you could get it to employ magicl/ext-blas and cl-bmas to speed it up. (petalisp looks relevant, but I lack the background to compare it with APL.)

> his means cl pagckages can be "done".

this is true if there is nothing functional that can be added to a package. however its very much not true for ml frameworks right now. new things are being added all the time in the field. however even in the package i linked you have the necessary ingredients for any deep learning model: cuda and back propagation. the other person mentioned convolution which i think is pretty trivial to implement but still, if you expect everything for you to be ready made then you should probably stick to tf and pytorch. if you want to explore the cutting edge and push the boundaries then i think common lisp is a good tool. as an aside it might also be interesting to note that a common lisp package (Petalisp) is being used for high performance computing by a german university

https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp

One trick is that Common Lisp can generate and compile code at runtime, whereas static languages typically do not have a compiler available at runtime. This lets you make your own lazy person's JIT/staged compiler, which is useful if some part of the problem is not known at compile-time. Such an approach has been used at least for array munging, type munging and regular expression munging.

so finally I tried running Pkg.add(Pkg.PackageSpec(url="https://github.com/JuliaStats/StatsBase.jl", rev="v0.24.0")) but encountered an error saying in needed to download dependencies like DataStructures.

The author identified some bugs and those were fixed. But they were all edge cases or footguns that are obviously bad to do, but allowed because Julia is a flexible language. For example, in this issue, the author overwrites the array they are sampling from. Which is obviously going to produce bad results.

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.