dfdx VS executorch

I keep checking the progress on dfdx for this reason. It does what I (and, I assume from context, you) want: Provides static checking of tensor shapes. Which is fantastic. Not quite as much inference as I'd like but I love getting compile-time errors that I forgot to transpose before a matmul.

It depends on the generic_const_exprs feature which is still, to quote, "highly experimental":

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560

Definitely not for production use, but it gives a flavor for where things can head in the medium term, and it's .. it's nice. You could imagine future type support allowing even more inference for some intermediate shapes, of course, but even what it has now is really nice. Like this cute little convnet example:

https://github.com/coreylowman/dfdx/blob/main/examples/night...

And for transformers, it's really early days for dfdx, but it's a library that aims to sit basically at the Pytorch level of abstraction, that the difference is it's not just coded in Rust, but it follows the Rust-y/functional-y philosophy of "if it compiles it runs".

Wow that is super interesting. I actually tried to use GATs at first to be generic over shapes, but I couldn't do it, I'm sure it would be possible in the future though. There is this library dfdx that does something similar to what you mentioned, but it feels a little clumsy to me.

Awesome, I added an issue here https://github.com/coreylowman/dfdx/issues/597. We can discuss more there! The first step will just be adding the device and implementing tensor creation methods for it.

The next release of dfdx includes a CUDA device and implements many ops. The same dev created a new crate, cudarc, for a wrapper around CUDA toolkit.

A question I have is: what are the philosophical/design differences with dfdx? As someone who's played around with dfdx and only skimmed the README of burn, it seems like dfdx leans into Rust's type system/type inference for compile time checking of as much as is possible to check at compile time. I wonder if you've gotten a chance to look at dfdx and would like to outline what you think the differences are. Thanks!

Genuine question, why should I use this to deploy models on the edge instead of executorch? https://github.com/pytorch/executorch

For context, I get to choose the tech stack for a greenfield project. I think that executor h, which belongs to the pytorch ecosystem, will have a way more predictable future than anything Google does, so I currently consider executorch more.

Something to consider for deploying LLMs on the ANE is: https://github.com/pytorch/executorch/tree/main/examples/app...

The model does have some limitations (e.g., need for QAT for 4-bit quantization), lack of a C++ runner to execute the model, but parts of the model are promising.

Did not know executorch existed! That's so cool! I have it on my bucket list to tinker with running LLMs on wearables after I'm a little further along in learning, great to see official tooling for that!

https://github.com/pytorch/executorch

Yes ExecuTorch is currently targeted at Edge devices. The runtime is written in C++ with 50KB binary size (without kernels) and should run in most of platforms. You are right that we have not integrated to Nvidia backend yet. Have you tried torch.compile() in PyTorch 2.0? It would do the Nvidia optimization for you without Torchscript. If you have specific binary size or edge specific request, feel free to file issues in https://github.com/pytorch/executorch/issues