huh. today i learned. thanks. talk running now...
On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 20:25:06 UTC-3, John Myles White wrote: > > One could argue that Julia is “statically compiled at run time”. See this > talk by http://vimeo.com/84661077 for a discussion of that viewpoint, > which I like. > > — John > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:20 PM, andrew cooke <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > then how is it a jit? i just checked wikipedia and the definition there > is interpreter + compiler. which would give you stats from the interpreter? > > (not trying to be confrontational, just not understanding...!) > > thanks, > andrew > > On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 20:07:12 UTC-3, Tim Holy wrote: >> >> Another factor is the following: Julia can't do the inference by watching >> what >> happens, because it has to compile the code before it runs. So it relies >> on >> static inference, or generates generic code when that fails. >> >> --Tim >> >> On Wednesday, March 05, 2014 02:51:21 PM andrew cooke wrote: >> > oh, i think i get it. >> > >> > you're not solving, you're just propagating. >> > >> > so you need the specified types to infer the return. and that's local >> to >> > the function so scales. >> > >> > ignore me :o) >> > >> > cheers, >> > andrew >> > >> > On Wednesday, 5 March 2014 19:40:30 UTC-3, andrew cooke wrote: >> > > another question here made me realise i don't understand how return >> types >> > > are handled in julia. >> > > >> > > after all, return types are not specified in functions (are they?). >> so >> > > how does the system know that get() for Dict{A,B} returns type B? >> > > >> > > i guess there has to be whole program type inference on startup? >> that >> > > pulls in and analyses base? or is this info cached somewhere? >> > > >> > > because if it was just the JIT seeing what happened in practice as >> code >> > > ran, then you wouldn't have to worry about efficiency in the memoize >> case >> > > (because the cache would always return the same type in practice). >> > > >> > > is this described somewhere? i thought i had read most of the docs >> by now >> > > (sorry if i've missed something). or am i confused (again)? >> > > >> > > thanks, >> > > andrew >> > > >> > > [if that's not clear, i think my problem is i don't understand how >> much >> > > the compiler relies on type inference, and how much on statistics of >> types >> > > of instances when running, and when inference is actually done] >> > >
