[eigenspace]

What the OP is talking about is julia's method-based JIT strategy coupling very well to multiple dispatch.

JIT is not new, multiple dispatch is not new, and multiple dispatch + JIT also isn't new, but nmo existing langauges combined them in a way that allows for the fantastic, efficient devirtualization of generic methods that julia is so good at.

This is why things like addition and multiplication are not generic functions in Common Lisp, it's too slow in CL because the CLOS is not able to efficiently devirtualize the dispatch. In julia, everything is a generic function, and we use this fact to great effect.

CLOS and Dylan laid a ton of important groundwork for these developments, but they're also not the same.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

It’s not true that CLOS generic dispatch is slow: Robert Strandh and other have done a bunch of work showing that it’s possible to implement it efficiently without giving up the dynamic redefinition features that make CLOS such a nice system. There’s at least one video game project (Kandria) that’s been funding an implementation of these ideas so that generic functions can be used in a soft real-time system like a video game.

The really nice thing about CLOS, though, is that the meta-object protocol lets you choose an implementation of OOP that makes sense for your use-case.

[eigenspace]

Yes, I don't doubt at all that it's possible to make CLOS dispatch fast. What I'm saying is that because historically people using CLOS had to pay a (often negligible) runtime cost for dispatch, it limited the number of places developers were willing to allow generic dispatch.

Julia makes the runtime cost of (type stable) dispatch zero, and hence does not even give julia programmers an *option* to write non-generic functions (though it can be hacked in like with FunctionWrappers.jl). I'm not familiar with Strandh's work, but has it made the overhead of generic functions low, or has it completely eliminated it?

Another thing I'll mention is that Julia's type system is parametric, and we allow values (not just types) in our type parameters which is immensely useful for writing generic high performance code. You can specialize methods on matrices of complex integers separately from rank 5 arrays of rational Int8s for instance. This is not a capability that CLOS or Dylan has as far as I'm aware, though the common refrain is that you can do it with macros, but that neglects that it's rather hard to get right, and will have limited use because such macro implementations of type parameters won't be ubiquitious.

________________________________

To be clear though, I'm not hating on Common Lisp or CLOS. The Common Lisp ecosystem is awesome and can do all sorts of really cool things that I wish we had in julia. I'm mostly just pushing back on the notion that Julia doesn't do anything new or interesting.

[cbkeller]

In this context, I think there might be an argument to be made that Julia is to multiple dispatch (or multiple dispatch + JAOT) as the iPhone is to “touchscreen computers that can make phone calls”.

It’s not that it’s the first, but it seems to be the first where the use of multiple dispatch throughout the community was sufficiently pervasive to kick-start the emergence of the strong network effects we’re now seeing w/r/t composability.

I would not be surprised to see more languages working to emulate this kind of combination of multiple dispatch and JAOT compilation in the future.

[pjmlp]

Except everyone is forgetting that I also mentioned Dylan, from Apple, and whose goal was to be a system programming language for the Newton OS, with the Dylan team winning over the C++ one, but internal politics made the decision to go with the outcome of the C++ team alongside NewtonScript.

[eigenspace]

I directed most of my comments towards CL because I know more about it than Dylan. My understanding is that Dylan lacks parametric types, so that comment can be straightforwardly applied to Dylan. IMO Parametric types are a really important part of this.

Regarding performance, I don't know much about this in Dylan. Was Dylan able to completely remove the runtime overhead of multiple dispatch for type stable code?

[pjmlp]

Yep, some research was done in that domain, https://opendylan.org/documentation/publications.html

Also note that it was competing against C++ as the Newton OS system programming language, it only lost due to politics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15107367

[cbkeller]

I think Dylan would be (perhaps ironically) the Newton in this analogy. (or maybe General Magic?)

Pioneering and ahead of its time in many ways, but for whatever reason it seems that the use of multiple dispatch in Dylan seems to have not (yet?) led to the same level of ecosystem-wide composability.