Isn't this solved by julia? I think scientific community should use a more functional language rather than language like python tbh
edit: also, I would be very surprised if you had seen any Julia job ads, v1.0 hasn't been released yet. Doesn't mean it can't make my scientific life easier in the meanwhile.
All of these things play to python's main strengths: huge community with connectors to every API and format, plus ability to conveniently integrate code at several levels of complexity & maturity as you prototype.
To do matrix multiplication on many matrices "stacked" together in one step, use numpy.matmul: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.m... (and so there's no need to slice up the array, convert to matrix, etc.)
Note that the Numpy devs are trying to (if they haven't already) get rid of the "matrix" class and just use arrays, but of course dealing with legacy code is always an issue. Once that's out of the way, people won't be distracted by "matrices" to do matrix operations, and hopefully they'll see you can do matrix operations on arrays directly. (And yes, in Python 3 you can use the @ syntax to the same effect.)
I think the python language is very elegant and the principle that there should be only one obvious way to do something has served them quite well. Unfortunately, in numpy you have quite often multiple ways to do things (often in addition to python own mechanism, e.g sum, numpy.sum and the sum method). I deal with students who have little programming experience and this can be confusing. One of the reasons I choose Julia for my lectures was that these issues do not exist in Julia. Julia is quite clean and simple in this regard.
However I completely see that for an experienced programmer (or a scientist with good programming experience), this is not a problem.
But for somebody learning to solve numerical problems, it is quite helpful that Julia code tends to be closer to the mathematical formulation. In addition, for the test I made, Julia code tends to be faster than vectorized numpy code (I can share the code if there is interest). The only major argument against Julia, in my opinion, is that it is still a young language and with a small ecosystem (much smaller in fact than python or R)
Anyhow, that experience surely doesn't map onto Julia, a completely different language. So I'd be curious to see what your use case is; it might give me a different perspective on Julia (which I have only played with a couple of times back when it was even younger).
https://gist.github.com/Alexander-Barth/c8eb764f400cdb7a1eb5...
Do not hesitate to tell me if I missed something to optimize the python code. If somebody has numba, pythan,... installed, I would be interested to see the speed-up compared to the vanilla python version on your machine.
So in short, for my cases: the fastest Julia test case (with loops and avoiding unnecessary allocation) was about 10x faster than fastest python 3 test case (with vectorization).
The runtime with vectorization are relatively similar (julia is only about 25% faster than python). Explicit loop and careful memory management are clearly beneficial in Julia.
Moral of the story is, these Python tools are built for microbenchmarks and can do okay there, but without the full stack optimized together and without a type system that's exploitable for all of the performance tricks, it falls apart in real-world code.
I agree that Python has a library advantage in data science + ML. R has a library advantage in the area of statistics. But Julia has quite a few advantages in the core math areas of scientific computing and algorithm development. There is headway being made into DS+ML as well. Julia's pandas/dataframe equivalent is JuliaDB which adds out-of-core and online stats functionality, so it's more at the level of pandas+dask. Flux.jl is still in its early stages but it's quite a unique ML framework which can directly incorporate any Julia function at any level, and then has some working experiments with compiling to things like JS and XLA.
But in the broad view of things, every language has SciPy+NumPy pretty satisfactory (ex: Julia's Base library has most of it, the top 20 packages cover the rest), but from there all have tradeoffs in what areas the community is specializing in.
And yet, for my particular area (audio signal processing), Julia is just objectively worse than Python in expressivity, library support, and even speed.
But I'll keep trying. Maybe next year.
(But it's true that idiomatic Fortran starts indexing from 1.)
Any stochastic process will have variability for a given set of inputs. I think there are more fields within the umbrella of Science where purely functional programming isn't an achievable ideal--let alone a desirable one--than there are where this is a good fit.
You can make the argument that all programming should be functional on its own if you want, and I'm open to that. But this it's pretty sketchy to me to just shoehorn all scientific work into a category of work that should definitionally be functional.
There are huge numbers of scientists who do not agree with that at all.
If you're modelling stochastic processes it's important to be able to set the random seed you can reproduce your simulations. So for a given set of inputs you should get the same output, given that one of the inputs is your seed.