rust-numpy VS julia

On the contrary, it can use and interface with numpy quite easily: https://github.com/PyO3/rust-numpy

Once I figured out the right tools, it was easy. Its just "maturin new". It automatically converts python floats and strings. Numpy arrays come through as a special Pyarray type, that you need to unwrap, but that's just one builtin function. Using pyo3, maturin and numpy, https://github.com/PyO3/rust-numpy it's fairly easy.

If I'm understanding this documentation correctly then you may be able to pass the numpy array directly with func(df['col'].to_numpy) which may save some conversion.

Otherwise, though, Rust is an excellent choice. The many advantages of Rust (great package manager, memory safety, modern language features, ...) are already well documented so I won't repeat them here. Specifically for writing Python libraries, check out PyO3, maturin, and rust-numpy, which allow for seamless integration with the Python scientific computing ecosystem. Dockerizing/packaging is a non-issue, with the aforementioned libraries you can easily publish Rust libraries as pip packages or compile them from source as part of your docker build. We have several successful production deployments of Rust code at OpenAI, and I have personally found it to be a joy to work with.

Integration with numpy uses the rust-numpy crate: Example of method that accepts numpy arrays as arguments Example of a method that returns a numpy array to Python (this performs a copy, there ought to be a way to avoid it but the current implementation has been plenty fast for my use case so far)

This example maybe helpful.

Given that it's via pyO3, you could even pass the numpy arrays using https://github.com/PyO3/rust-numpy and get ndarrays at the other side.

Same no copy, slightly more user friendly approach.

Further criticism of the actual approach - even if we didn't do zero copy, there's no preallocation for the vector despite the size being known upfront, and nested vectors are very slow by default.

So you could speed up the entire thing by passing it to ndarray, and then running a single call to sum over the 2D array you'd find at the other end. (https://docs.rs/ndarray/0.15.1/ndarray/struct.ArrayBase.html...)

https://github.com/PyO3/rust-numpy

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!

🌟 Visit Github

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

The one you need is this which is already merged but was after the 1.10 feature freeze so it has to wait till 1.11, though you can test it with nightly builds which is available on julialang site: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/51435

Unfortunately, the core devs are not too chatty about standalone binaries, because of how Julia's internals are set there are going to be a lot of unforeseen challenges, so they are not trying to promise how things will be rather let's wait and see how things will turnout. Since packagecompiler.jl already has C ABI and one goal discussed about binaries being easily callable from other languages and vice versa, I would bet that it will have shared libraries.

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 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...