RecursiveFactorization
julia
RecursiveFactorization | julia | |
---|---|---|
3 | 350 | |
- | 44,569 | |
- | 0.6% | |
- | 10.0 | |
- | 2 days ago | |
Julia | ||
- | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
RecursiveFactorization
-
Can Fortran survive another 15 years?
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.
- Yann Lecun: ML would have advanced if other lang had been adopted versus Python
-
Small Neural networks in Julia 5x faster than PyTorch
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
-
Top Paying Programming Technologies 2024
34. Julia - $74,963
-
Optimize sgemm on RISC-V platform
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.
-
Dart 3.3
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!
-
Julia 1.10 Highlights
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md
-
Best Programming languages for Data Analysis📊
Visit official site: https://julialang.org/
-
Potential of the Julia programming language for high energy physics computing
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
-
Rust std:fs slower than Python
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".
-
Eleven strategies for making reproducible research the norm
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
-
Julia as a unifying end-to-end workflow language on the Frontier exascale system
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.
-
Getaddrinfo() on glibc calls getenv(), oh boy
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...
What are some alternatives?
tiny-cuda-nn - Lightning fast C++/CUDA neural network framework
jax - Composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs: differentiate, vectorize, JIT to GPU/TPU, and more
diffrax - Numerical differential equation solvers in JAX. Autodifferentiable and GPU-capable. https://docs.kidger.site/diffrax/
NetworkX - Network Analysis in Python
vectorflow
Lua - Lua is a powerful, efficient, lightweight, embeddable scripting language. It supports procedural programming, object-oriented programming, functional programming, data-driven programming, and data description.
LeNetTorch - PyTorch implementation of LeNet for fitting MNIST for benchmarking.
rust-numpy - PyO3-based Rust bindings of the NumPy C-API
KiteSimulators.jl - Simulators for kite power systems
Numba - NumPy aware dynamic Python compiler using LLVM
RecursiveFactorization.jl
F# - Please file issues or pull requests here: https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp