Our great sponsors
-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
-
-
-
SciMLBenchmarks.jl
Scientific machine learning (SciML) benchmarks, AI for science, and (differential) equation solvers. Covers Julia, Python (PyTorch, Jax), MATLAB, R
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
ModelingToolkit.jl
An acausal modeling framework for automatically parallelized scientific machine learning (SciML) in Julia. A computer algebra system for integrated symbolics for physics-informed machine learning and automated transformations of differential equations
-
DifferentialEquations.jl
Multi-language suite for high-performance solvers of differential equations and scientific machine learning (SciML) components. Ordinary differential equations (ODEs), stochastic differential equations (SDEs), delay differential equations (DDEs), differential-algebraic equations (DAEs), and more in Julia.
-
DiffEqOperators.jl
Discontinued Linear operators for discretizations of differential equations and scientific machine learning (SciML)
-
-
-
OMEinsum.jl
One More Einsum for Julia! With runtime order-specification and high-level adjoints for AD
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
Mutation is tricky, because basically the only way to do it sanely is to copy all data into the residual, but since most arrays aren't actually mutated, that's extremely wasteful. I've been hoping to address this by changing mutability in the language more generally (e.g. https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/42465) to make immutable arrays the default at which point there wouldn't be a penalty anymore. I've had request to do the mutable copying optionally, but it's a bit tricky, because it needs rule system integration and the rule system currently doesn't reason about mutation.
As for exceptions and recursion, shouldn't be a problem, just needs to be implemented.
Yes, it uses Debugger.jl, which relies on JuliaInterpreter.jl under the hood, so while you can tell the debugger to compile functions in certain modules, it will mostly interpret your code.
You might be interested in https://github.com/JuliaDebug/Infiltrator.jl, which uses an approach more similar to what you describe.
I would not go as far as calling it very naive, there has certainly been some work put into optimizing performance within the current design.
There are probably some gains to be had by using a different storage format for the IR though as proposed in [1], but it is difficult to say how much of a difference that will make in practice.
[1] https://github.com/JuliaDebug/JuliaInterpreter.jl/pull/309
I think I have a good news for you. Deep mind acquired and open sourced the project a few months ago.
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.
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.
Let's even put raw numbers to it. DifferentialEquations.jl usage has seen compile times drop from 22 seconds to 3 seconds over the last few months.
https://github.com/SciML/DifferentialEquations.jl/issues/786
>I hope those benchmarks are coming in hot
M1 is extremely good for PDEs because of its large cache lines.
https://github.com/SciML/DiffEqOperators.jl/issues/407#issue...
The JuliaSIMD tools which are internally used for BLAS instead of OpenBLAS and MKL (because they tend to outperform standard BLAS's for the operations we use https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl/pull/2...) also generate good code for M1, so that was giving us some powerful use cases right off the bat even before the heroics allowed C/Fortran compilers to fully work on M1.
>I hope those benchmarks are coming in hot
M1 is extremely good for PDEs because of its large cache lines.
https://github.com/SciML/DiffEqOperators.jl/issues/407#issue...
The JuliaSIMD tools which are internally used for BLAS instead of OpenBLAS and MKL (because they tend to outperform standard BLAS's for the operations we use https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl/pull/2...) also generate good code for M1, so that was giving us some powerful use cases right off the bat even before the heroics allowed C/Fortran compilers to fully work on M1.
I don't understand how it's ever an actual problem and not just people being lazy / literally just starting out learning the language. Every Python-capable editor / IDE is capable of, and immediately will, notify you of any formatting issues of the sort. Python also has great, trivial to use autoformatters like black[1] that essentially all production code should use.
What realistic scenario is there where it actually makes sense deviating from the standard the language is trying to enforce?
Related posts
- Good linear algebra libraries
- Julia 1.9: A New Era of Performance and Flexibility
- How much useful are Runge-Kutta methods of order 9 and higher within double-precision arithmetic/floating point accuracy?
- Interpolant Coefficients for the BS5 Runge-Kutta method
- ‘Machine Scientists’ Distill the Laws of Physics from Raw Data