[mccoyb]

I don't believe it, otherwise why not just compile a static but generic version of the method with branches based on the tags of values? ("Can't figure out the types, wait until runtime and then just branch to the specialized method instances which I do know the types for")

Perhaps there is something about subtyping which makes this answer ... not correct -- and if someone knows the real answer, I'd love to understand it.

I believe that this answer is because of performance -- if I can JIT at runtime, that's great -- I get dynamism and performance ... at the cost of a small blip at runtime.

And yes, "performant Julia code" -- that's the static subset of the language that I roughly equated to be the subset which is trying to be pried free from the dynamic "invoking the compiler again" part.

[eigenspace]

> why not just compile a static but generic version of the method with branches based on the tags of values? ("Can't figure out the types, wait until runtime and then just branch to the specialized method instances which I do know the types for")

This is exactly what the new AOT compiler (juliac) does. The original article is just a bit inaccurate.

The problem though, is that if you have a truly dynamic call-site where you have no idea which method body will be called, then the AOT compiler can't know if the right method specializations will survive the trimming process, so you'll get errors or warnings when compiling with the --trim feature active (--trim is what is used to make the AOT compiled binaries small).

However, there are still lots of cases where you can have a dynamic dispatch but can convince the compiler that there will be an already compiled method signature for every possible specialization. In that case --trimm will work fine and do exactly what you described above.

[DNF2]

I'm not exactly sure what you don't believe, your comment is hard to follow, or relies on premises I haven't detected. What you are describing in your first paragraph is somewhat reminiscent of dynamic dispatch, which Julia does use, but generally hampers performance. It is something to avoid in most cases.

Anyway, performance in Julia relies heavily on statically inferring types and aggressive type specialization at compile time. Triggering the compiler later, during actual runtime, can happen, but is certainly not beneficial for performance, and it's quite unusual to claim that it's central to the performance model of Julia.

If you are asking why Julia allows recompiling code and has dynamic types, it's not for performance, but to allow an interactive workflow and user friendly dynamism. It is the central tradeoff in Julia to enable this while retaining performance. If performance was the only concern, the language would be very different.

[mccoyb]

I used Julia for 4 years. I'm not a moron: I'm familiar with how it works, I've written several packages in it, including some speculative compiler ones.

You claimed:

> Allowing invokation of the compiler at runtime is definitely not something that is done for performance, but for dynamism, to allow some code to run that could not otherwise be run.

I asked:

> why not just compile a static but generic version of the method with branches based on the tags of values? ("Can't figure out the types, wait until runtime and then just branch to the specialized method instances which I do know the types for")

Which can be done completely ahead of time, before runtime, and doesn't rely on re-invoking the compiler, thereby making this whole "ahead of time compilation only works for a subset of Julia code" problem disappear.

Do you understand now?

My original comment:

> The problem (which the author didn't focus on, but which I believe to be the case) that Julia willingly hoisted on itself in the pursuit of maximum performance is _invoking the compiler at runtime_ to specialize methods when type information is finally known.

is NOT a claim about the overall architecture of Julia -- it's a point about this specific problem (Julia's static ahead-of-time compilation) which is currently highly limited.

[DNF2]

First of all, I think this sort of aggressive tone is unwarranted.

Secondly, I think it's on you to clarify that you were talking specifically and exclusively about static compilation to standalone binaries. Re-reading your first post strongly gives the impression that you were talking about the compilation strategy in general.

I would also remind you that Julia always does does-ahead-of-time compilation.

Furthermore, my limited understanding of the static compiler (--trim feature), based on hearsay, is that it does pretty much what you are suggesting, supporting dynamic dispatch as long as one can enumerate all the types in advance (though requiring special implementation tricks). Open-ended type sets are not at all supported.