diffrax VS julia

Optimistix has high-level APIs for minimisation, least-squares, root-finding, and fixed-point iteration and was written to take care of these kinds of subroutines in Diffrax.

Diffrax (https://github.com/patrick-kidger/diffrax).

Here is the GitHub: https://github.com/patrick-kidger/optimistix

The elevator pitch is Optimistix is really fast, especially to compile. It

Sure. So I've got some PyTorch benchmarks here. The main take-away so far has been that for a neural ODE, the backward pass takes about 50% longer in PyTorch, and the forward (inference) pass takes an incredible 100x longer.

FWIW this worked for me. :D My full-time job is now writing JAX libraries at Google. Equinox for neural networks, Diffrax for differential equation solvers, etc.

It's relatively early days yet, but JAX is in the process of developing its nascent scientific computing / scientific machine learning ecosystem. Mostly because of its strong autodifferentiation capabilities, excellent JIT compiler etc. (E.g. to show off one of my own projects, Diffrax is the library of diffeq solvers for JAX.)

Diffrax - solving ODEs with Jax and computing it's derivatives automatically functools - love partial and lru_cache fastprogress - simpler progress bar than tqdm

At least prior to this announcement: JAX was much faster than PyTorch for differentiable physics. (Better JIT compiler; reduced Python-level overhead.)

E.g for numerical ODE simulation, I've found that Diffrax (https://github.com/patrick-kidger/diffrax) is ~100 times faster than torchdiffeq on the forward pass. The backward pass is much closer, and for this Diffrax is about 1.5 times faster.

It remains to be seen how PyTorch 2.0 will compare, or course!

Right now my job is actually building out the scientific computing ecosystem in JAX, so feel free to ping me with any other questions.

https://github.com/patrick-kidger/diffrax

Which are neural network and differential equation libraries for JAX.

[Obligatory I-am-googler-my-opinions-do-not-represent- your-employer...]

Autodifferentiable programming!

Neural networks are the famous example of this, of course -- but this can be extended to all of scientific computing. ODE/SDE solvers, root-finding algorithms, LQP, molecular dynamics, ...

These days I'm doing all my work in JAX. (E.g. see Equinox or Diffrax: https://github.com/patrick-kidger/equinox, https://github.com/patrick-kidger/diffrax). A lot of modern work is now based around hybridising such techniques with neural networks.

I'd really encourage anyone interested to learn how JAX works under-the-hood as well. (Look up "autodidax") Lots of clever/novel ideas in its design.

34. Julia - $74,963

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.

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!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

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

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".

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

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.

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...