awesome-lisp-companies VS ModelingToolkit.jl

Thanks to ITA Software (powering Kayak and Orbitz), Google dedicates resources to open-source Common Lisp development. More specifically, to SBCL:

> Doug Katzman talked about his work at Google getting SBCL to work with Unix better. For those of you who don’t know, he’s done a lot of work on SBCL over the past couple of years, not only adding a lot of new features to the GC and making it play better with applications which have alien parts to them, but also has done a tremendous amount of cleanup on the internals and has helped SBCL become even more Sanely Bootstrappable. That’s a topic for another time, and I hope Doug or Christophe will have the time to write up about the recent improvements to the process, since it really is quite interesting.

> Anyway, what Doug talked about was his work on making SBCL more amenable to external debugging tools, such as gdb and external profilers. It seems like they interface with aliens a lot from Lisp at Google, so it’s nice to have backtraces from alien tools understand Lisp. It turns out a lot of prerequisite work was needed to make SBCL play nice like this, including implementing a non-moving GC runtime, so that Lisp objects and especially Lisp code (which are normally dynamic space objects and move around just like everything else) can’t evade the aliens and will always have known locations.

https://mstmetent.blogspot.com/2020/01/sbcl20-in-vienna-last...

https://lisp-journey.gitlab.io/blog/yes-google-develops-comm...

The ASDF system definition facility, at the heart of CL projects, also comes from Google developers.

While we're at it, some more companies using CL today: https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/

Everyone, if you don't have a clue on how's Common Lisp going these days, I suggest:

https://lisp-journey.gitlab.io/blog/these-years-in-common-li... (https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/107oejk/these_years_i...)

A curated list of libraries: https://github.com/CodyReichert/awesome-cl

Some companies, the ones we hear about: https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/

and oh, some more editors besides Emacs or Vim: https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/editor-support.ht... (Atom/Pulsar support is good, VSCode support less so, Jetbrains one getting good, Lem is a modern Emacsy built in CL, Jupyter notebooks, cl-repl for a terminal REPL, etc)

Examples (for Common Lisp, so not citing Emacs): reddit v1, Google's ITA Software that powers airfare search engines (Kayak, Orbitz…), Postgres' pgloader (http://pgloader.io/), which was re-written from Python to Common Lisp, Opus Modus for music composition, the Maxima CAS, PTC 3D designer CAD software (used by big brands worldwide), Grammarly, Mirai, the 3D editor that designed Gollum's face, the ScoreCloud app that lets you whistle or play an instrument and get the music score,

but also the ACL2 theorem prover, used in the industry since the 90s, NASA's PVS provers and SPIKE scheduler used for Hubble and JWT, many companies in Quantum Computing, companies like SISCOG, who plans the transportation systems of european metropolis' underground since the 80s, Ravenpack who's into big-data analysis for financial services (they might be hiring), Keepit (https://www.keepit.com/), Pocket Change (Japan, https://www.pocket-change.jp/en/), the new Feetr in trading (https://feetr.io/, you can search HN), Airbus, Alstom, Planisware (https://planisware.com),

or also the open-source screenshotbot (https://screenshotbot.io), the Kandria game (https://kandria.com/),

and the companies in https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies and on LispWorks and Allegro's Success Stories.

https://github.com/tamurashingo/reddit1.0/

http://opusmodus.com/

https://www.ptc.com/en/products/cad/3d-design

http://www.izware.com/mirai

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/scorecloud-express/id566535238

> but there doesn't seem to be one that really stands out as pragmatic, industrial

disagree ;) This industrial language is Common Lisp.

Some industrial uses:

- http://www.lispworks.com/success-stories/index.html

- https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/

- https://lisp-lang.org/success/

Example companies: Intel's programmable chips, the ACL2 theorem prover (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2015.039...), urban transportation planning systems (SISCOG), Quantum Computing (HRL Labs, Rigetti…), big data financial analysis (Ravenpack, they might be hiring), Google, Boeing, the NASA, etc.

ps: Python competing? strong disagree^^

and of course, a quite recent list of companies, in addition of LW's success stories page: https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/

Hey there, newer member of the first group here. Please see https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/ to update your meta-comment. So, is CL used in the industry today, yes or no?

Personal note: I much prefer to maintain a long-living software in Common Lisp rather than in Python, thank you very much. May all the new programmers learn easily and all the teams have lots of ~~burden~~ work with Python, good for them.

Common Lisp has many industrial uses though.

(https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/

https://lisp-lang.org/success/

http://www.lispworks.com/success-stories/index.html

such as

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/ (theorem prover used by big corp©)

https://allegrograph.com/press_room/barefoot-networks-uses-f... (Intel programmable chip)

quantum compilers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32741928

etc, etc, etc)

A few more that we know of, using CL today: https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/

Others: https://lisp-lang.org/success/

yes

https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies

http://lisp-lang.org/success/

industrial theorem prover, design of Intel chips, quantum compilers...

and little me, being more productive and having more fun than with python to deploy boring tools (read a DB, format the data, send to FTP servers, show a web interface...).

I'd use a modeling tool like https://mtk.sciml.ai/dev/ Using the standard library, you wouldn't need to come up with all equations yourself. Depending on the details of your use case, system identification as suggested before might be a faster approach though.

No, you do get type errors during runtime. The most common one is a MethodNotFound error, which corresponds to a dispatch not being found. This is the one that people then complain about for long stacktraces and as being hard to read (and that's a valid criticism). The reason for it is because if you do xy with a type combination that does not have a corresponding dispatch, i.e. (x::T1,y::T2) not defined anywhere, then it looks through the method table of the function, does not find one, and throws this MethodNotFound error. You will only get no error if a method is found. Now what can happen is that you can have a method to an abstract type, *(x::T1,y::AbstractArray), but `y` does not "actually" act like an AbstractArray in some way. If the way that it's "not an AbstractArray" is that it's missing some method overloads of the AbstractArray interface (https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/interfaces/#man-inte...), you will get a MethodNotFound error thrown on that interface function. Thus you will only not get an error if someone has declared `typeof(y) <: AbstractArray` and implemented the AbstractArray interface.

However, what Yuri pointed out is that there are some packages (specifically in the statistics area) which implemented functions like `f(A::AbstractArray)` but used `for i in 1:length(A)` to iterate through x's values. Notice that the AbstractArray interface has interface functions for "non-traditional indices", including `axes(A)` which is a function to call to get "the a tuple of AbstractUnitRange{<:Integer} of valid indices". Thus these codes are incorrect, because by the definition of the interface you should be doing `for i in axes(A)` if you want to support an AbstractArray because there is no guarantee that its indices go from `1:length(A)`. Note that this was added to the `AbstractArray` interface in the v1.0 change, which is notably after the codes he referenced were written, and thus it's more that they were not updated to handle this expanded interface when the v1.0 transition occurred.

This is important to understand because the criticisms and proposed "solutions" don't actually match the case... at all. This is not a case of Julia just letting anything through: someone had to purposefully define these functions for them to exist. And interfaces are not a solution here because there is an interface here, its rules were just not followed. I don't know of an interface system which would actually throw an error if someone does a loop `for i in 1:length(A)` in a code where `A` is then indexed by the element. That analysis is rather difficult at the compiler level because it's non-local: `length(A)` is valid since querying for the length is part of the AbstractArray interface (for good reasons), so then `1:length(A)` is valid since that's just range construction on integers, so the for loop construction itself is valid, and it's only invalid because of some other knowledge about how `A[i]` should work (this look structure could be correct if it's not used to `A[i]` but rather do something like `sum(i)` without indexing). If you want this to throw an error, the only real thing you could do is remove indexing from the AbstractArray interface and solely rely on iteration, which I'm not opposed to (given the relationship to GPUs of course), but etc. you can see the question to solving this is "what is the right interface?" not "are there even interfaces?" (of which the answer is, yes but the errors are thrown at runtime MethodNotFound instead of compile time MethodNotImplemented for undefined things, the latter would be cool for better debugging and stacktraces but isn't a solution).

This is why the real discussions are not about interfaces as a solution, they don't solve this issue, and even further languages with interfaces also have this issue. It's about tools for helping code style. You probably should just never do `for i in 1:length(A)`, probably you should always do `for i in eachindex(A)` or `for i in axes(A)` because those iteration styles work for `Array` but also work for any `AbstractArray` and thus it's just a safer way to code. That is why there are specific mentions to not do this in style guides (for example, https://github.com/SciML/SciMLStyle#generic-code-is-preferre...), and things like JuliaFormatter automatically flag it as a style break (which would cause CI failures in organizations like SciML which enforce SciML Style formatting as a CI run with Github Actions https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl/blob/v8.14.1/.gi...). There's a call to add linting support for this as well, flagging it any time someone writes this code. If everyone is told to not assume 1-based indexing, formatting CI fails if it is assumed, and the linter underlines every piece of code that does it as red, (along with many other measures, which includes extensive downstream testing, fuzzing against other array types, etc.) then we're at least pretty well guarded against it. And many Julia organizations, like SciML, have these practices in place to guard against it. Yuri's specific discussion is more that JuliaStats does not.

The thing to watch in the space of Simulink/Modelica is https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl . It's an acausal modeling system similar to Modelica (though extended to things like SDEs, PDEs, and nonlinear optimization), and has a standard library (https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkitStandardLibrary.jl) similar to the MSL. There's still a lot to do, but it's pretty functional at this point. The two other projects to watch are FunctionalModels.jl (https://github.com/tshort/FunctionalModels.jl, which is the renamed Sims.jl), which is built using ModelingToolkit.jl and puts a more functional interface on it. Then there's Modia.jl (https://github.com/ModiaSim/Modia.jl) which had a complete rewrite not too long ago, and in its new form it's fairly similar to ModelingToolkit.jl and the differences are more in the details. For causal modeling similar to Simulink, there's Causal.jl (https://github.com/zekeriyasari/Causal.jl) which is fairly feature-complete, though I think a lot of people these days are going towards acausal modeling instead so flipping Simulink -> acausal, and in that transition picking up Julia, is what I think is the most likely direction (and given MTK has gotten 40,000 downloads in the last year, I think there's good data backing it up).

And quick mention to bring it back to the main thread here, the DataDrivenDiffEq symbolic regression API gives back Symbolics.jl/ModelingToolkit.jl objects, meaning that the learned equations can be put directly into the simulation tools or composed with other physical models. We're really trying to marry this process modeling and engineering world with these "newer" AI tools.

In this case, yes, this should just be done numerically. But using symbolic transformations to optimize numeric code is also a really neat application of symbolic computing that doesn't get enough attention, imo. [This library](https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl), for example, uses symbolics to do sparsity detection, automatic derivative/gradient/jacobian/hessian calculations, index reduction, etc. to speed up numerical differential equation solving.

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~thickstn/ctpg-project-page/...

That's all showing the raw iteration count to show that it algorithmically is faster, but the time per iteration is also fast for many reasons showcased in the SciMLBenchmarks routinely outperforming C and Fortran solvers (https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl). So it's excelling pretty well, and things like the automated discovery of black hole dynamics are all done using the universal differential equation framework enabled by the SciML tools (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12695 for that application).

What we are missing however is that, right now these simulations are all writing raw differential equations so we do need a better set of modeling tools. That said, MuJoCo and DiffTaichi are not great physical modeling environments for building real systems, instead we would point to Simulink and Modelica as what are really useful for building real-world systems. So it would be cool if there was a modeling language in Julia which extends that universe and directly does optimal code generation for the Julia solvers... and that's what ModelingToolkit.jl is (https://github.com/SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl). That project is still pretty new, but there's already enough to show some large-scale models outperforming Dymola on examples that require symbolic tearing and index reduction, which is far more than what physical simulation environments used for non-scientific purposes (MuJoCo and DiffTaichi) are able to do. See the workshop for details (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEVOgSLBzWA). And that's just the top level details, there's a whole Julia Computing product called JuliaSim (https://juliacomputing.com/products/juliasim/) which is then being built on these pieces to do things like automatically generate ML-accelerated components and add model building GUIs.

That said, MuJoCo and DiffTaichi have much better visualizations and animations than MTK. Our focus so far has been on the core routines, making them fast, scalable, stable, and extensive. You'll need to wait for the near future (or build something with Makie) if you want the pretty pictures of the robot to happen automatically. That said, Julia's Makie visualization system has already been shown to be sufficiently powerful for this kind of application (https://nextjournal.com/sdanisch/taking-your-robot-for-a-wal...), so we're excited to see where that will go in the future.

PDEs are difficult because you don't have a simple numerical definition over all PDEs because they can be defined by arbitrarily many functions. u' = Laplace u + f? Define f. u' = g(u) * Laplace u + f? Define f and g. Etc. To cover the space of PDEs you have to go symbolic at some point, and make the discretization methods dependent on the symbolic form. This is precisely what the ModelingToolkit.jl ecosystem is doing. One instantiation of a discretizer on this symbolic form is NeuralPDE.jl which takes a symbolic PDESystem and generates an OptimizationProblem for a neural network which represents the solution via a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN).

There's a very clear momentum for Julia here in this domain of modeling and simulation. With JuliaSim funding an entire modeling and simulation department within Julia Computing dedicated to building out an ecosystem that accelerates this domain and the centralization around the SciML tooling, this is an area where we absolutely have both a manpower and momentum advantage. We're getting many universities (PhD students and professors) involved on the open source side, while building out different commercial tools and GUIs on top of the open numerical core. The modeling and simulation domain itself is soon going to have its own SciMLCon since our developer community has gotten too large to just be a few JuliaCon talks: it needs its own days to fit everyone! Not only that, in many aspects we're not just moving faster but have already passed. Not in every way, there's still some important discussion in controls that needs to happen, but that's what the momentum is for.

Julia has great support for modeling, have a look at ModelingToolkit.jl. From the README: