-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comparison with DifferentiationInterface.jl #131
Comments
Thanks for the summary. I will respond to each point below.
|
I just updated the comparison to include the new features we added these past few weeks (mutating functions, second order, testing and benchmarking utilities) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi there,
Adrian Hill (@adrhill) and I recently started a new unified differentiation package called DifferentiationInterface.jl:
I'm gonna try to show why we did that, how we proceeded, and what we expect to gain from it.
The discussion had started in #129 but did not go very far.
The main idea was to be less generic than AbstractDifferentiation from the start, in order to reduce the surface of error and focus on testing + performance.
This led to severe feature regressions and a complete rewrite, which is why I felt it was best to start a new project.
Whenever I say below that something is not implemented in AbstractDifferentiation, I don't mean it can never be.
I just mean it might require significant changes, not unlike the ones Adrian and I proposed.
Design principles
@primitive
macrojacobian
pushforward
/pullback
AbstractArray
orNumber
Features
Performance comparison
I'm gonna add AbstractDifferentiation as an extension to DifferentiationInterface, so that we can include its backends in our benchmark suite and compare.
The results will be posted here in the coming days.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: