Hacker News Reader

The recommended solution to slow startup times has always been keep a repl open. That's basically the same workflow as a notebook in my mind. Like I said this means there is a large class of tasks julia a doesn't make sense for because paying the startup cost is too expensive compared to python or go.

I just timed vscode with the lsp. From the point I open a 40 line file of the lorenz attractor example, it takes 45 seconds until navigation within that same file works, and the lsp hogs 1 GB of memory. That's 5x the memory of clangd and 20x worse performance; hardly what I would consider a snappy experience.

I have no doubt that julia can be shoe-horned into realtime applications. But when I read threads like this [1], it's pretty clear that doing so amounts to a hack (e.g., people recommending that you somehow call all your functions to get them jited before the main loop actually starts). Even the mitigations you propose, i.e., pre-allocating everything, don't exploit any guarantees made by the language, so you're basically in cross-your-fingers and pray territory. I would never feel comfortable advocating for this in a commercial setting.

[1] https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-for-real-time-worrie...

I don't know man, I just tested vscode and it's almost instant, loads every function from multiple files in less than 5 seconds. I'm on a 13-inch intel Mac and Julia 1.11 master (1.9 and 1.10 should be the same).

Having a REPL open is not the same thing as a notebook, if you feel like that, cool I guess.

That thread is old and Julia can cache compiled code now from 1.9 and onward. However, it can not distribute the cached code(yet).

Writing the fastest possible real-time application in c/c++ has the same principles as in Julia. It's not as shoe-horned as you might believe.

When developing Julia, the developers chose some design decisions that affected the workflow of using the language. If it doesn't fit your needs that's cool, don't use it. If you are frustrated and like to try the language come to discourse, people are friendly.

>I don't know man, I just tested vscode and it's almost instant, loads every function from multiple files in less than 5 seconds. I'm on a 13-inch intel Mac and Julia 1.11 master (1.9 and 1.10 should be the same).

I know, I'm always "holding it wrong". And that's the problem with julia.

> Having a REPL open is not the same thing as a notebook, if you feel like that, cool I guess.

Both workflows amortize the JIT times away by keeping an in-memory cache compiled code. This makes a lot of smaller scripting tasks untenable in julia. So people chose python instead. That means julia needs a massive advantage elsewhere if they are going to incorporate both languages into their project.

> When developing Julia, the developers chose some design decisions that affected the workflow of using the language. If it doesn't fit your needs that's cool, don't use it. If you are frustrated and like to try the language come to discourse, people are friendly.

This thread was about why julia hasn't seen wider adoption. It's my contention that the original design decisions are a one of the root causes of that.

I just tried it from the Windows command line and this benchmark with the plots ran in what seemed like instant, and some simple timing showed it was under 2 seconds with a fresh Julia v1.10 beta installation. That seems to line up with what amj7e is saying, and I don't think anyone would call the Windows command line the pinnacle of performance? That's not to say Julia's startup is fast, but it has improved pretty significantly for workflows like due to the package caching. It needs to keep improving, and the work to pull OpenBLAS safely out of the default system image will be a major step in that direction, but it's already almost an order of magnitude better than last year in most of the benchmarks that I run.

I think the person you are replying to was using notebook as shorthand for interactively. You don't write scripts that you call, you have to have a repl open to interactively feed code to.

Autocompletion in Julia is also just terrible and the tooling really is lacking compared to better funded languages. No harm in admitting that (when Julia had no working debugger some people were seriously arguing that you don't need one: Just think harder about your code! Let's please bury that attitude...)

This certainly has not been my experience with Julia people. Sure there are opinionated people in every community, but most of pain points are acknowledged and known.

I can confirm that there were multiple (heated) arguments on Discourse, where some posters completely dismissed the need for debuggers in general. I remember it quite well.

It was very strange, but I don't think it says anything about the community, except that people have different opinions and preferences, like in any community.

>> For a long time, one got told that the "correct" way to use julia was in a notebook. Outside of that, nobody wanted to hear your complaints.

> I have never seen anybody in the community say the correct way to use Julia is in a notebook.

patrick's comment is fully in the past tense for this part, and that was indeed a pretty common thing for a long while in the past. Especially pre-1.0, before Revise became mature and popular, an oft-recommended workflow was to use a notebook instead of an editor. Or it would come in the form of a reply to criticism about the slow startup or compilation latency - "the scientists who this language is made for use notebooks anyway, so it doesn't matter" was a common response, indirectly implying that that was the intended way to use the language.

You must mean REPL, not notebook. I've been following the community since before the move to Discourse, and "use the REPL" surely outnumbers "use a notebook" by orders of magnitude.

Here on HN (in threads about Julia) the focus was generally on notebooks as I remember it. That's the context I assumed, but if it's about Julia fora in general I agree, the REPL had/has been talked about much more often than notebooks.