Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Register
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
F
fluiddyn_papers
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Container registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
fluiddyn
fluiddyn_papers
Commits
6bba7886
Commit
6bba7886
authored
4 years ago
by
Pierre Augier
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
Carl Friedrich's improvements
parent
be71968d
No related branches found
No related tags found
1 merge request
!5
First modifications to take care of the editor remarks
Changes
2
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
2 changed files
reply_Zwart2020/correspondence.md
+7
-6
7 additions, 6 deletions
reply_Zwart2020/correspondence.md
reply_Zwart2020/reply_editor_NA.md
+20
-19
20 additions, 19 deletions
reply_Zwart2020/reply_editor_NA.md
with
27 additions
and
25 deletions
reply_Zwart2020/correspondence.md
+
7
−
6
View file @
6bba7886
...
...
@@ -36,9 +36,9 @@
We read with attention the comment by Zwart on
**
The ecological impact of
high-performance computing in astrophysics
**
\c
ite{Zwart2020}. We fully agree
with its take-home message: scientists should be mindful
l
of their carbon
footprint. One of the proposed solution is to avoid the Python programming
language. We advocate that
i
t would be counterproductive and that scientific
with its take-home message: scientists should be mindful of their carbon
footprint. One of the proposed solution
s
is to avoid the Python programming
language. We advocate that t
his
would be counterproductive and that scientific
programs written in Python can be efficient and energy friendly. We argue that
advancement of compiler technology, human factors and education are much more
important than choice of language.
...
...
@@ -129,8 +129,9 @@
the implementation labelled "Julia" is comparable with the "Pythran" and
"Numba" implementations and could have been written by scientists with similar
skills. We did not include a Julia implementation similar to "Pythran naive"
because it is inefficient. "Julia optimized" and "Julia parallel" have
been proposed by Julia users after a long discussion on Julia forum.
because it is inefficient. "Julia optimized" and "Julia parallel" have been
proposed by Julia users after a long discussion on a
[
Julia
forum
](
https://discourse.julialang.org/t/nbabel-nbody-integrator-speed-up/
)
.
The four points close to the bottom-left corner correspond to two parallel
implementations using Pythran+OpenMP and Julia executed using 6 and 12 CPU
...
...
@@ -144,7 +145,7 @@
Our work shows that the performance of scientific programs depends less on
languages than on time spent on optimization and developer skills to correctly
use the right tools. Th
is
benchmark demonstrate
s
that dynamic languages like
use the right tools. Th
ese
benchmark
s
demonstrate that dynamic languages like
Python can actually be good solutions to easily obtain good performance while
retaining simplicity and readability. We think that minimizing the ecological
impact of scientific computing is mainly limited by human factors: time, work,
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
reply_Zwart2020/reply_editor_NA.md
+
20
−
19
View file @
6bba7886
...
...
@@ -2,14 +2,15 @@
Thank you for reading our draft and for your suggestions.
We agree that our opening paragraph misconstrued the article Zwart (2020). We
tried to be simple and short but we forgot to mention its most important
message which is indeed that we should be mindful of the environmental impact
of our computations! However, the focus on the choice of the languages and on
the danger "interpreted scripting languages" and in particular Python is also
an important aspect of Zwart comment. Python is mentionned in the abstract, in
Figures 1 and 3, all along section 3 "The role of language on the ecology" and
in the conclusions. We rewrote the first paragraph which is now:
We agree with your suggestion to focus more on the commonalities between our
position and that of Zwart. We tried to be simple and short but we left the
most import message implicit, which is indeed that we should be mindful of the
environmental impact of our computations! However, the focus on the choice of
the languages and on the danger "interpreted scripting languages" and in
particular Python is also an important aspect of Zwart's comment. Python is
mentioned in the abstract, in Figures 1 and 3, all along section 3 "The role of
language on the ecology" and in the conclusions. We rewrote the first paragraph
which is now:
"We read with attention the comment by Zwart on
**
The ecological impact of
high-performance computing in astrophysics
**
\c
ite{Zwart2020}. We fully agree
...
...
@@ -13,11 +14,11 @@
"We read with attention the comment by Zwart on
**
The ecological impact of
high-performance computing in astrophysics
**
\c
ite{Zwart2020}. We fully agree
with its take-home message: scientists should be mindful
l
of their carbon
footprint. One of the proposed solution is to avoid the Python programming
language. We advocate that
i
t would be counterproductive and that scientific
with its take-home message: scientists should be mindful of their carbon
footprint. One of the proposed solution
s
is to avoid the Python programming
language. We advocate that t
his
would be counterproductive and that scientific
programs written in Python can be efficient and energy friendly. We argue that
advancement of compiler technology, human factors and education are much more
important than choice of language."
Regarding the length of our text, we tried to reduce it by rewording and
...
...
@@ -19,16 +20,16 @@
programs written in Python can be efficient and energy friendly. We argue that
advancement of compiler technology, human factors and education are much more
important than choice of language."
Regarding the length of our text, we tried to reduce it by rewording and
c
utting unnecessary words
. You suggested to remove the first half of the
paragraph on
compiled/interpreted language and JIT/AOT compilation. We
decreased the length
of this paragraph but we think that it is actually useful
to recall that languag
es are not "interpreted" or "compiled". Only
implementations
of languages interpret or/and compile code. This distinction
between
"interpreted languages" and "compiled languages" is very common and is
at the
base of Zwart conclusions on Python. Moreover, we anyway need to
introduce the
acronyms JIT and AOT. We now write:
c
larifying the text
. You suggested to remove the first half of the
paragraph on
compiled/interpreted language and JIT/AOT compilation. We
decreased the length
of this paragraph but we think that it is actually useful
to recall that
languages themselv
es are not "interpreted" or "compiled". Only
implementations
of languages interpret or/and compile code. This distinction
between
"interpreted languages" and "compiled languages" is very common and is
at the
base of Zwart conclusions on Python. Moreover, we anyway need to
introduce the
acronyms JIT and AOT. We now write:
"Zwart (2020) characterizes languages as being “interpreted” or “compiled” but
these categories make sense only for specific implementations. Some
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment