> And the major language most machine learning researchers use is Python.
Read again what I wrote. Even the model itself is optimized. The fact that it is written in Python or in any DSL is irrelevant.
> I used to think that too before I spent years doing functional programming.
I have done functional programming in many languages, ranging from lambda calculus itself to OCaml to Haskell, including inside and outside academia. It does not change anything I have said.
Perhaps you spent way too many years in high-level languages that you have started believing magical properties about their compilers.
> prided myself on being able to implement things like highly-optimized numerical code with templates.
Optimizing numerical code has little to do with code monomorphization.
It does sound like you were abusing C++ thinking you were "optimizing" code without actually having a clue.
Like in the previous point, it seemed you attributed magical properties to C++ compilers back then, and now you do the same with high-level ones.
> It actually took a few years before my code in Lisp, Scheme, JavaScript, and Python stopped being structured like C++.
How do you even manage write code in Lisp etc. "like C++"? What does that even mean?
> You putting "Python" and "Java" in the same sentence shows this isn't a process you've gone through yet. Java has roughly the same limitations as C and C++.
Pure nonsense. Java is nowhere close to C or C++.
> Here's a challenge for you.
I would use Mathematica or Julia for that. Not Scheme, not C++. Particularly since you already declared the last 30% of performance is irrelevant.
You are again mixing up domins. You are picking a high-level domain and then complaining a low-level tool does not fit nicely. That has nothing to do with the discussion and we could apply that flawed logic to back any statement we want.
> Perhaps you spent way too many years in high-level languages that you have started believing magical properties about their compilers.
> It does sound like you were abusing C++ thinking you were "optimizing" code without actually having a clue.
> Like in the previous point, it seemed you attributed magical properties to C++ compilers back then, and now you do the same with high-level ones.
I think at this point, I'm checking out. You're making a lot of statements and assumptions about who I am, what my background is, what I know, and so on. I neither have the time nor the inclination to debunk them. You don't know me.
When you make it personal and start insulting people, that's a good sign you've lost the technical argument. Technical errors in your posts highlight that too.
If you do want to have a little bit of fun, though, you should look up the template-based linear algebra libraries of the late nineties and early 00's. They were pretty clever, and for a while, were leading in the benchmarks. They would generate code, at compile time, optimized to the size of your vectors and matrixes, unroll loops, and similar. They seem pretty well-aligned to your background. I think you'll appreciate them.
Read again what I wrote. Even the model itself is optimized. The fact that it is written in Python or in any DSL is irrelevant.
> I used to think that too before I spent years doing functional programming.
I have done functional programming in many languages, ranging from lambda calculus itself to OCaml to Haskell, including inside and outside academia. It does not change anything I have said.
Perhaps you spent way too many years in high-level languages that you have started believing magical properties about their compilers.
> prided myself on being able to implement things like highly-optimized numerical code with templates.
Optimizing numerical code has little to do with code monomorphization.
It does sound like you were abusing C++ thinking you were "optimizing" code without actually having a clue.
Like in the previous point, it seemed you attributed magical properties to C++ compilers back then, and now you do the same with high-level ones.
> It actually took a few years before my code in Lisp, Scheme, JavaScript, and Python stopped being structured like C++.
How do you even manage write code in Lisp etc. "like C++"? What does that even mean?
> You putting "Python" and "Java" in the same sentence shows this isn't a process you've gone through yet. Java has roughly the same limitations as C and C++.
Pure nonsense. Java is nowhere close to C or C++.
> Here's a challenge for you.
I would use Mathematica or Julia for that. Not Scheme, not C++. Particularly since you already declared the last 30% of performance is irrelevant.
You are again mixing up domins. You are picking a high-level domain and then complaining a low-level tool does not fit nicely. That has nothing to do with the discussion and we could apply that flawed logic to back any statement we want.