[hpcjoe]

It is possible, within specific limits, using StaticTools.jl and StaticCompiler.jl. Sadly for me, my code won't work within the indicated limits.

This is the biggest issue for me, for deployable code. I'd love to hand my users a single binary (like go/rust), which has all the code/data needed, so no precompilation time, and instant startup. I am hoping the Julia team understand how important this is ... language competitors have runtimes (python, etc.) or binaries (go/rust/c++). We really need the latter to distribute code to production.

Imagine a post compilation step, kind of like the code caching, which wraps everything we need into a binary, with compiled cached code, startup code, runtime libs, etc. . That would be amazing, and fit well within the julia paradigm.

[eigenspace]

StaticCompiler / StaticTools are a bleeding-edge playground. GP is talking about PackageCompiler.jl which is for serious things that can be trusted to work, but is slow and produces huge binaries.

[huijzer]

Plus, to make it fully static, you need to ensure that all code paths are being hit.

[hpcjoe]

I've been looking into that for a while, as a way to create a common environment for users in my team. I did get it to work, though as you mention, build times are long for this.

[cookieperson]

Yea or you can just write C++ or Rust and honestly... See some advantages in doing so from a maintenance angle. Dynamicly typed languages have some pretty serious shortcomings. Scientists are smart people, they just need some training to learn to use those tools or to work with someone who can help them do it.