[julia-users] Re: GSoC 2015 with JuliaQuantum

Hello everyone, We have made some decent progress during GSoC 2015 and we would like to present the work here : QuDynamics.jl : This is the repo which has resulted out of GSoC. Almost all of the work is reflected in the repo. Also the blog posts

[julia-users] Re: [ANN] ShaderToy.jl

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:21:16 PM UTC, Simon Danisch wrote: > > Hi, > you want to try out GPU accelerated ray tracing? You want some quick and > easy start for GPU accelerated fractal rendering? > You can do this quite easily now! > ShaderToy

[julia-users] setting span for Loess filter

I am using Loess.jl to do some filtering of a few hundred daily time series, with gaps, and length ~4000 days. I want to remove variability with periods below 20 days. In matlab this is easy to define: Z = SMOOTH(X,Y,0.3,'loess') uses the loess method where span is 30% of the data, i.e.

Re: [julia-users] Re: Documentation of operators

Thank you. I struggled a bit with how to phrase my question. 'operator', it turns out wasn't the best choice. Maybe symbols would have been better? A table of operators and other symbols would be very useful. Maybe a good project for a newbie like myself. To leave something in this thread

[julia-users] Re: GSoC 2015 with JuliaQuantum

The link stands corrected : and as well reproducing the message so that it does not get covered under the thread ! Hello everyone, We have made some decent progress during GSoC 2015 and we would like to present the work here : QuDynamics.jl

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

[This (part A) is probably not implemented yet, and probably not even a new idea.. possibly julia-dev material?] On mið 23.sep 2015 16:26, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote: Le mercredi 23 septembre 2015 à 07:38 -0700, Páll Haraldsson a écrit : instead of these two type-unstable variants: type

Re: [julia-users] Re: transparent color in gadfly

I'd recommend filing an issue with Gadfly containing a complete, stand-alone example. (Or tackling it yourself, it may not be hard---see the changes in the PR I linked to.) Best, --Tim On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 07:47:24 PM Li Zhang wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I Checked out the Compose and

[julia-users] Re: [ANN] ShaderToy.jl

Well, Julia is not directly at work here and its not really about ray tracing ;) You need to write the shader in GLSL , which is more C-like. That said, I'm pretty sure that the ray tracing examples are faster than most of the ray tracing

[julia-users] Why Julia completions fails to complete unicode when I use sublime text?

It always fails to complete when I'm typing in the line which is not the last line. if it is the last line of this program the completion can work

Re: [julia-users] @code_warntype and for loops

>> This is the lowered and typed abstract syntax tree that you're seeing, >> so two steps removed from what you've typed already (and another two >> steps to go to get to machine code). Thus it gets more verbose. I >> guess it would be nice to translate this typed code back to what you >> wrote

Re: [julia-users] @code_warntype and for loops

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:21:47 AM UTC+2, Mauro wrote: > > >> This is the lowered and typed abstract syntax tree that you're seeing, > >> so two steps removed from what you've typed already (and another two > >> steps to go to get to machine code). Thus it gets more verbose. I >

Re: [julia-users] @code_warntype and for loops

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:06:51 AM UTC+2, Mauro wrote: > > > Thank you, Kristoffer. I have read the manual and your post about not > > getting carried away by the red == bad assumption > > < >

Re: [julia-users] [ANN] Plots 0.2.0

Yes that's an important point, and one that may be Plots most important use. For me, I want to write complex plotting/visualizations for OnlineStats and OnlineAI, and its too restrictive to assume that a user will have Gadfly, or Qwt, or Winston installed. (Right now, Plots is only dependent on

Re: [julia-users] Matrix multiplication: "_unsafe_getindex" and "_unsafe_batchsetindex"

Thanks for the clarification, Tim! My concern was that the "unsafe" calls signalled a problem with the bounds. Am Donnerstag, 24. September 2015 02:51:16 UTC+2 schrieb Tim Holy: > > Welcome to Julia! > > Can you clarify the precise nature of your concern? I'm not sure I see a > problem. To

Re: [julia-users] Re: Why Julia completions fails to complete unicode when I use sublime text?

so any idea on how to fix it? 2015-09-24 14:52 GMT+08:00 Tomas Lycken : > It could be that some feature or plugin in Sublime is hogging the key > sequences, or that you have the completion option turned off (with a > possible bug for the last-line thing). For example, you

[julia-users] Re: Why Julia completions fails to complete unicode when I use sublime text?

It could be that some feature or plugin in Sublime is hogging the key sequences, or that you have the completion option turned off (with a possible bug for the last-line thing). For example, you wouldn't want that type of completion to happen when typing a LaTeX document, so the editor has to

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

Wow. All this discussion to make Julia only *as fast as* the old scripting languages? I gotta say that worried me a bit. What do you do when there's no code to compare? How will you know that it was really a good idea switching from Matlab/Python to Julia? Considering what the develops

Re: [julia-users] Re: What are the "strengths" of the Julia "ecosystem" (e.g. for bio and quants/finance)? This is not a very specific question (while sub-questions are), you've been warned..

I agree with all that - there isn't a web framework for Julia that is at the level of something Django or RoR. It seems totally reasonable to use those mature tools for the frontend of your webapp, which could in term communicate with a Julia backend. I just meant that some of the lower levels of

Re: [julia-users] Re: Documentation of operators

expanding the list to include things like ‘..’ There’s a brief mention of .. syntax in the manual, http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/modules/#relative-and-absolute-module-paths, but adding something about it to the docstring for using or import would probably be worth doing. and ->

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

I have been spending the past weeks trying to really understand how to implement efficient code. As far as I can tell (from first hand experience), Julia really does give you a prominent edge over R and Matlab in terms of performance. However, I also think that there are currently a lot of

Re: [julia-users] Juno for Julia 0.4.0

> > Also, are the developers considering incorporating and IDE, so one is > guaranteed to work with every new release? > The long-term plan is to create a bundle package, along the lines of Anaconda or PythonXY, with one editor and several major packages + dependencies included. There is a lot of

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

There is no question that Julia needs more work. This applies to offering speedy primitives and also doing more optimizations. But I think you get one thing wrong. The magic lays in the fact, that in Julia you have the chance to write the vectorized implementation that are offered by languages

[julia-users] Juno for Julia 0.4.0

Hi All, I've tried some IDEs and 'found all of them have at least one annoying bug or problem. Juno lacks a console to type commands, but at least it has all other things I wanted working (code completion, docs, code evaluation). Atom with julia-autocomplete and julia-console (or whatever

Re: [julia-users] Re: Documentation of operators

There's already a table of punctuation which is pretty handy, though not complete (it doesn't contain .. or ->), so adding those and other symbols would be a great little project! Scott On Thursday, 24 September 2015 12:07:54 UTC+1,

[julia-users] Re: [ANN] ShaderToy.jl

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 11:21:16 PM UTC, Simon Danisch wrote: > > Hi, > you want to try out GPU accelerated ray tracing? You want some quick and > easy start for GPU accelerated fractal rendering? > You can do this quite easily now! > ShaderToy

[julia-users] Re: [ANN] ShaderToy.jl

[My reponse here is kind of off-topic for Julia, but on graphics..] Similar to other GPU/OpenGL wrapper stuff for Julia I've seen, is the overhead low, as in 0% or low single digits? On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:04:41 AM UTC, Simon Danisch wrote: > > Well, Julia is not directly at work

Re: [julia-users] Re: IDE for Julia

Here's the current state of my Gtk-based IDE prototype. It's very buggy but there's some basic things work. https://gfycat.com/YawningLeftCaterpillar It seems doable to make a decent IDE this way, although it's a lot of work and there's a few challenges. Currently I can't set fonts, there's

[julia-users] Re: What are the "strengths" of the Julia "ecosystem" (e.g. for bio and quants/finance)? This is not a very specific question (while sub-questions are), you've been warned..

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:58:01 PM UTC, Andrei Zh wrote: > > If you are looking for a best in the class libraries, you probably won't > find many. This is implied by a simple fact that most such libraries had > already been created in other languages by the time Julia was born. >

Re: [julia-users] Re: What are the "strengths" of the Julia "ecosystem" (e.g. for bio and quants/finance)? This is not a very specific question (while sub-questions are), you've been warned..

On fim 24.sep 2015 13:25, Jonathan Malmaud wrote: I agree with all that - there isn't a web framework for Julia that is at the level of something Django or RoR. It seems totally reasonable to use those mature tools for the frontend of your webapp, which could in term communicate with a Julia

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:17:25 PM UTC, Marcio Sales wrote: > > Wow. All this discussion to make Julia only *as fast as* the old > scripting languages? > This is not what I meant. Matching C is the goal I understand and often that goal is met. *Should* always be possible. A. By

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

"Idiot-proof" sounds awesome, but at least makes it so that the user could be aggressive to the language, and not the language to be aggressive to the newbie, would be a great to way to approach. It would also help avoinding "scarecrowing" away potential contributors.

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

Yeah cause Haskell is so super newbie friendly??? I don't think the developers had the goal with Julia that you should be able to write code with as few characters as possible. On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:54:37 PM UTC+2, Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at

[julia-users] Same native code, different performance

Can someone explain these results to me. Two functions: f(x) = @fastmath cos(x)^3 f_float(x) = @fastmath cos(x)^3.0 Identical native code: julia> code_native(f, (Float64,)) .text Filename: none Source line: 1 pushq %rbp movq%rsp, %rbp movabsq $cos, %rax Source line: 1

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

I think julia is very newbie-friendly, except for some very common patterns that people run into. How many times do people run into the "globals are slow" problem, post a long question about why "I thought julia was fast...", and then we go through the same performance tips. It would be nice if

[julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

I cannot reproduce this on RC2. Probably the inlining fails for f on some julia version? Am Donnerstag, 24. September 2015 18:04:18 UTC+2 schrieb Kristoffer Carlsson: > > Can someone explain these results to me. > > Two functions: > f(x) = @fastmath cos(x)^3 > f_float(x) = @fastmath cos(x)^3.0

[julia-users] Re: [ANN] ShaderToy.jl

I'm not sure what you're talking about. ShaderToy.jl just makes it easy to execute an OpenGL shader written in GLSL, which then runs directly on the GPU. Running an OpenGL shader, animating some variables and displaying the results requires some setup, which is the part done in Julia. Ray

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

My argument does be purely about performance. However, you won't know if your Julia code is 1.3x slower than C or 130x slower, until you write the C code. On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 7:14:46 PM UTC+2, Tom Breloff wrote: > > Unless you are experts of compilers and Julia language, you can

Re: [julia-users] Re: @sprintf with a format string

So if I understand your post correctly, one item on your wishlist is for the output to change formatting dynamically based on the value of the floating point number? There's nothing inherently hard about that... it could just be a setting for `fmt` which you can switch on or off (and that could

Re: [julia-users] Re: @sprintf with a format string

With this Julia code: x = -2.34e-12; for i in 1:5 x=-x*5000. println("$i $x") end I get this output: 1 1.17e-8 2 -5.8506e-5 3 0.29254 4 -1462.50002 5 7.3125001e6 I don't think this is too bad. True, the output is a bit longer, but I actually prefer

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

I dissected the bench-method into two, just to be sure (on 0.4-RC2). julia> function bench(N) for i = 1:N f(π/4) end end bench (generic function with 1 method) julia> function bench_f(N) for i = 1:N f_float(π/4) end

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-4, Sisyphuss wrote: > > However, Julia is assumed to be fast (high expectation), and performance > varies a lot according to the knowledge/skill a programmer own (high > variance). > Again, that's true in any language where you are trying to

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

Rewriting code in another language, unless it affords supports some manner of proof and validation, is not a good approach to proving Julia code operates as designed and intended. There is a likelihood of doing something not quite right twice or two different things differently. Sometimes, I

[julia-users] Request for comments: best way to deal with type uncertainty.

Hi Julia Users, I'm one of the Core-Devs in the BioJulia organisation, with a background in evolutionary biology/genetics, and, with a few other contributors I'm writing Bio.jl's Phylo submodule. The primary type of this submodule is the Phylogeny. Which is a composite type, used to describe

Re: [julia-users] Re: @sprintf with a format string

Hi Tom Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I had to go away for a couple of days. Thanks for the installation information, @fmt is working fine now. It's still not as useful as the Fortran print * formatting however because it ​requires the user to know what's coming. For example, the

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

> > it would be nice to have a more obvious way to automatically fix things > like globals that could be declared const, or maybe even automatically > wrapping global code in functions? I think these words reflect exactly the point I wanted to make. I understand the grandiosity that is

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On 24 September 2015 at 14:17, Marcio Sales wrote: > Wow. All this discussion to make Julia only *as fast as* the old > scripting languages? I gotta say that worried me a bit. What do you do when > there's no code to compare? How will you know that it was really a good >

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

I think Tom iir right here. These lines call the pow function movabsq $pow, %rax callq *%rax but the actual pow functions that is being called is different. I am surprised it is that much of a difference in performance between the two pow functions... That seems odd. What Mauro says

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

These criticisms are frankly ridiculous. When your critique could be applied to any programming language that exists then you are doing it wrong.

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On 24 September 2015 at 22:00, Marcio Sales wrote: > it would be nice to have a more obvious way to automatically fix things >> like globals that could be declared const, or maybe even automatically >> wrapping global code in functions? > > > I think these words reflect

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On 24 September 2015 at 22:31, Marcio Sales wrote: > Matlab *requires* vectorized code because Matlab loops are very slow by >> comparison >> > It is much faster these days (from R2014). > It is much faster than it used to be, but it is still slow. I know that Matlab

[julia-users] Re: Documentation of operators

I ran into this problem before with punctuation. https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/b418a03529a9afec07c5aa032a9124b03cef912e#diff-91ec6806d45dd62d07012f6a018b151f Maybe this should be addressed again. On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 5:32:57 PM UTC-5, Alex Copeland wrote: > > > > Hi,

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On 24 September 2015 at 19:00, Sisyphuss wrote: > What do you do when there's no code to compare? >> > This is a good point! When I write a piece of Julia code, how do I know I > wrote it correctly? Should I write a C version to prove it? > This is what I called the risk

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

This conversation is getting pretty tiresome. There are programs where Matlab is already as fast as it's possible to be. If all you're doing is computing a big matrix product, for example, then all any language is just going to call BLAS. Julia is not going to be any faster than Matlab for that,

[julia-users] How to find connected components in a matrix using Julia

Assume I have the following matrix: mat = [1 1 0 0 0 ; 1 1 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 0 1 ; 0 0 0 1 1] Considering as a "component" a group of neighbour elements that have value '1', how to identify that this matrix has 2 components and which vertices compose each one? For the matrix *mat* above I would

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

In the native code above, the C function `pow(double, double)` is called in both cases. Maybe `llvm_powi` is involved; if so, it is lowered to the same `pow` function. The speed difference must have a different reason. Sometimes there are random things occurring that invalidate benchmark results.

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

Le jeudi 24 septembre 2015 à 13:31 -0700, Marcio Sales a écrit : > > Matlab *requires* vectorized code because Matlab loops are very > > slow by comparison > It is much faster these days (from R2014). I remember I ran some very > simple comparisons and it surprised me that Matlab ran a bit faster

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

+1 On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > This conversation is getting pretty tiresome. There are programs where > Matlab is already as fast as it's possible to be. If all you're doing is > computing a big matrix product, for example, then all any

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

To put it another way, there are plenty of problems that can't be vectorized effectively. ODEs, matrix assembly for FEM or BEM, implementing special functions... If you do enough scientific computing, eventually you will hit a problem where you need to write your own inner loops, and then with

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

I don't like to invoke the black magic card here. I have tried benchmarking in different ways in different scenarios and the results are consistent. It is also reproducable by others. FWIW this is what lead me to this https://github.com/JuliaDiff/ForwardDiff.jl/issues/57

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

But the floating ones are the faster ones. Shouldn't it be the opposite?

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

> > That is a meaningless comparison. First, you are not comparing loops, you > are comparing matrix inversion. Second, neither Matlab nor Julia will > natively perform a matrix inversion well. They are both going to use an > external library (LAPACK) so what you are testing is the library,

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On 24 September 2015 at 14:47, Christof Stocker wrote: > As far as I can tell (from first hand experience), Julia really does give > you a prominent edge over R and Matlab in terms of performance. However, I > also think that there are currently a lot of ways to shoot

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

> > Matlab *requires* vectorized code because Matlab loops are very slow by > comparison > It is much faster these days (from R2014). I remember I ran some very simple comparisons and it surprised me that Matlab ran a bit faster than Julia in a for loop of matrices multiplications and

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

On 24 September 2015 at 19:55, Sisyphuss wrote: > People won't apply my critique on Matlab or R, because these languages are > assumed to be slow and they must be slow. So there is no "risk/variance" > (in the good sense) for these language. No sooner one learns to write

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Erik Schnetter wrote: > In the native code above, the C function `pow(double, double)` is called in > both cases. Maybe `llvm_powi` is involved; if so, it is lowered to the same > `pow` function. The speed difference must have a different

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

> > What do you do when there's no code to compare? > This is a good point! When I write a piece of Julia code, how do I know I wrote it correctly? Should I write a C version to prove it? This is what I called the risk to write Julia code. Unless you are experts of compilers and Julia language,

Re: [julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

> > Unless you are experts of compilers and Julia language, you can never know > whether your code give you an edge or not Isn't this true of all languages? How do you know you did that C pointer arithmetic correctly? Or that python didn't silently clobber your data? This is why integration

[julia-users] Optimal Control using Dynamic Programming

Hi, I am new to Julia. I need to solve an optimal control problem using dynamic programming. Are there pre-defined functions/packages that I could use? Thanks.

[julia-users] Stateflow equivalent in Julia

Hi, I am new to Julia. I tried implementing a logic that I had in Simulink - Stateflow using Julia, but ran into trouble. Any heads-up on this? Thank you

[julia-users] Is there a way to define abstract type from a type in base.jl

How to make Array{BigFloat,1}<:Array{Real,1}?

[julia-users] Re: Julia code 5x to 30x slower than Matlab code

People won't apply my critique on Matlab or R, because these languages are assumed to be slow and they must be slow. So there is no "risk/variance" (in the good sense) for these language. No sooner one learns to write vectorized code, than he reaches the limit of these languages. However,

[julia-users] Re: Request for comments: best way to deal with type uncertainty.

As an update: We have tested fetching annotations without trying to enforce type, and then another in which we don't. I don't understand why, but the one in which we don't enforce type, is faster, it is also puzzling for me as the one where we don't enforce type allocates memory, and yet is

[julia-users] Re: Request for comments: best way to deal with type uncertainty.

Missed the `tree = ...` line. Can you post a version of the above that I can copy and paste (here, or link to a gist) to recreate the timings and look at it locally? On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:41:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Ward wrote: > > As an update: We have tested fetching annotations

Re: [julia-users] Re: Same native code, different performance

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Yichao Yu wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Erik Schnetter > wrote: > > In the native code above, the C function `pow(double, double)` is called > in > > both cases. Maybe `llvm_powi` is involved; if so, it is