Hacker News Reader

I know that there are plans to cache even more, but other than that I can basically only recommend to put distinct projects into proper projects (with a module and Project.toml). That will already cache precompiled code for that module, even between sessions. Having things in a script won't have that benefit. For experimenting with struct layouts, I've found that NamedTuples (https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/base/base/#Core.NamedTuple) are amazing for prototyping, since they can be accessed via A.b just like structs but don't have the limitation of being const global.

The dynamism and flexibility combined with the compilation model is basically what leads down this path of recompilation, unfortunately. Since importing packages may change behaviour/invalidate some compiled method (that's what the SnoopCompile stuff in the article was about), it's nontrivial to just begin caching things left and right. You'd end up with an exponential explosion in the number of methods to cache, wasting huge amounts of disk space. That's not to say that there aren't more things that could be done, just that it's hard to do so.

I've read a bit on type invalidation and I know it's a hard problem (in fact it's hard for me to even wrap my head around it, lol). Still, it's unfortunate. One thing I would like to know is if the difficulties with invalidation are a symptom of the dynamic semantics, or of the compilation model.

Namedtuples are cool, but I'm not sure I understand the tradeoffs between using them and using structs. Can I just replace all structs in my project with named tuples, without having a performance hit?

Note that I didn't suggest replacing structs with NamedTuples entirely - only during prototyping, while you're figuring out what you want your struct to look like. Structs most definitely will be faster.

I mean, I could, it's just that its pretty hard to know in advance which structs I will have to modify... Most of the time I only need to do minor edits like add 1 field. By that point I need to recompile anyway if I am to switch to NamedTuples...

> Structs most definitely will be faster.

I am not 100% sure this is true.

Structs will definately look cleaner in the code. Not sure they will be faster though.

Do you know what the differences end up being when it comes to compilation? (not a rhetorical question - I'd like to know)

Run `@code_typed` and `@code_llvm` and find out?

I feel your pain on interfaces. As it stands, Julia simply doesn't encourage carefully thinking/documenting about what assumptions your code makes and just banging things together, hoping they work. Good luck dealing with any obscure MethodErros that result if they don't.

It still, at the end of the day, is a mostly academic language. So mostly small projects with very few people working on them. No need to architect bigger solutions/patterns, etc...

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. Core team members have expressed serious interest in getting more static verification, interfaces and other type goodness into the language, but if you try to force the issue it turns into a Python 2->3 problem. Not to mention that there are few if any examples of how to fit type checking alongside multiple dispatch (e.g. C# punts with dynamic).

I personally find static types indispensable when working with a large codebase, but to say people don't care about this in the Julia community is just not correct.

One thing is the Core Team Members and their long term plans, which I'm not privy to. The other is the impression generated by interacting with others in the community online, where people disagree with the very premise that there is a problem.

I also see your point that not too much is known in this design space, but I also think that's why it would be good for the community to step up and experiment with this more. Figure out what works. I had plans to do that last summer but life intervened so I am stuck commentating from the sidelines. :P

Note that if you ask on slack, you often will get answers from the core team members. They're pretty open. The main place where plans aren't the most clear is when there are features that everyone knows would be good, but aren't on the top of any of the the main people's to-do list. The JuliaLang repo has over 1000 people who have contributed, so a lot of the time, a new feature is just the result of a community member making a random PR. Stack trace improvements for example, started as a package, got ported to Base, and got improved by a bunch of people contributing to design decisions.

> The "just ahed of time" compilation is one of those obvious-in-hindsight ideas IMO

It's not new. One of the most widely used Lisp environments, SBCL, works this way. So does Chez Scheme, and therefore now Racket.

That's interesting, I didn't know Racket worked like that. What I meant wasn't so much that its a new idea, rather that it's a good one.

No one interested in interfaces? My impression is that interfaces is very commonly discussed, and is one of the most anticipated features in the language, though it may not come until v2.0.

OK, I was being hyperbolic. It's just that the interest is low compared to other features, as most people involved in the project are used to dynamic languages and don't feel the need. It's been in discussion for a long time, with no action so far. From what I've seen, the general attitude is a bit dismissive of the utility of static verification ("its different in our language because X" type attitude)

My impression with this is that it's mostly coming from a few academics that never work on code they haven't written themselves, and that have no understanding of use-cases other than their own...