I'm afraid that changing the subject here removes all context for this message in most email systems. Groups seems to keep the message in context:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/Dt6nbfhtaNQ/TCy6zT9HAAAJ On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Oliver Schulz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 7:10:00 PM UTC+2, Andrew Keller wrote: >> >> Regarding your first question posed in this thread, I think you might be >> interested in this documentation >> <http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/devdocs/functions/> of how >> functions will work in Julia 0.5 if you haven't read it already. >> > > Yes, I'm aware that some big changes are coming with 0.5, and many of them > (e.g. threads and fast anonymous functions) are of course highly relevant > to this kind of application. For now I'm kinda stuck with 0.4 for actual > use cases, because so many packages (e.g. PyPlot, Gadfly, ...) have trouble > with 0.5 at the moment. But once 0.5 is ready, I will probably not even try > to keep things compatible with 0.4, as this is a new project anyway. > > > I hope you don't mind that I've tried out your setindex and getindex >> approach. [...] It is very pleasant to use but I have not benchmarked it in >> any serious way [...] If you'd like me to try out something I'll see what I >> can do. >> > > Thanks, you're more than welcome! The more the merrier, and this can only > profit from wide testing. It would be good to try how this performs with, > say, about 500 feature types and 500 device types, each implementing like > 100 features. I hope this will still perform well in dynamic dispatch > situations - maybe one of the Julia experts can weigh in here? > > > It sounds like you have probably been thinking deeply about instrument >> control for a much longer period of time than I have. >> > > Well, thinking and learning a lot from my earlier mistakes. :-) > > > You can find any number of discussion threads, GitHub issues, etc. on >> traits in Julia but I don't know what current consensus is. >> > > I did play with some of the current approaches to traits in Julia a while > ago (Mauro's and Tim's work), and it's definitely something to watch (I'd > love to see something like that in Base some day). For now, I hope we may > be able to get by without explicit "device classes". > > > >> Thanks for linking to your code. I have no experience with Scala but I >> will take a look at it. >> > > Don't judge to harshly. :-) This has been a work in progress for many > years, and it is in active use for two long-term physics experiments and > multiple lab applications - but since it was always driven by our current > needs, I often didn't find time to port new ideas and concepts to older > portions of the code. One of the goals was always to use it for both > high-rate physics DAQ, and low-rate "slow-control"/SCADA applications. I > was planning a major overhaul, but recently decided that Julia will be a > better platform in the long run for various reasons (one of them that most > students don't have time to learn several programming languages, and Scala > isn't really an option for our kind of data analysis). > > Implementing specific devices has actually only been a fraction of the > work - a large part has always been implementing communication protocols. > For various devices, I needed (and implemented) VXI11, Modbus, SNMP, VME > (over ethernet bridge), CANOpen (for one speficic gateway), and various > vendor specific ASCII and binary protocols (e.g. Pfeiffer vaccum, old > Keithley ASCII, etc.). Plus things like an SCPI parser, etc.. I look > forward to port all of that to Julia - well, eventually ... ;-) > > I'd like the core to stay pure-Julia, though this will be challenging with > VXI11 and SNMP, as there's no native-Julia ONC-RPC or SNMP library. And for > devices that really need a vendor-specific VISA driver (because SCPI over > VXI11 is not enough) Instruments.jl ( > https://github.com/BBN-Q/Instruments.jl) may come in play (haven't tried > it yet). > > I'd love to work with other people interested in this - Julia is great at > making data analysis fast and easy, not reason it shouldn't be as great at > taking the data in the first place! > > > >> Unitful.jl and SIUnits.jl globally have the same approach [...] My >> package only supports Julia 0.5 though. [...]An open question is how one >> could dispatch on the dimensions (e.g. x::Length). >> > > Ah, right, now I remember - i kinda mixed up SIUnits and Unitful, sorry. I > did give Unitful a quick try when you announced it on the list, and I was > very impressed. But then I kinda had to force myself to put it aside for a > while, since I can't really switch to 0.5 yet. ;-) I do recall the > discussion about dispatching on units, though - that would be way cool, but > even without, Unitful will be a great ingredient to any Julia data > acquisition solution. > > > Cheers, > > Oliver > >
