Julia is the Desktop Linux of these kinds of programming languages: it’s about to get really big sometime very soon in the future! Then you see a post like this years later. “THIS YEAR IS IT!”
As someone who started to study economics and switched into computer science, can anyone explain why Stata is used for most economics work when Python/Julia/R seem like such better options and are free?
> can anyone explain why Stata is used for most economics work
Your question implies a limited view of the field of economics. Stata is the dominant piece of software in fields like labor economics. That's because the people working in those areas want to enter a few commands or click a few menu options and let Stata do its thing. It's hard to beat for that type of analysis. Just make sure you don't want to do any actual programming.
Macro theory traditionally used Matlab and Fortran. Time series long ago used GAUSS, RATS, and EViews, among others, but never Stata. R and Python are used a lot today. Then there are others like SAS and LIMDEP that are no longer used as much, but have their niches.
I much prefer R and Julia, but there are algorithms in Stata that don't exist anywhere else. And so, for some jobs, Stata it must be. If you are wondering, for us it was standard errors for clustered panel models.
My mom is a developmental economist. She exclusively uses Stata, inspite of a decade of efforts on my part to introduce her to R and R studio. My conclusion is that she views the tools as equivalent, and merely incidental to her work, and doesn't want to go to the effort of learning a new tool, that gives her no meaningful benefit.
Inertia. Stata was a good and relatively easy option in the eighties when the credibility revolution kicked off. Now it takes too much effort to switch over to R. At least that’s way current tenured professors believe and good luck convincing them otherwise.
I use Julia regularly for experimental machine learning. It’s great for writing high performance, distributed code and even easier than Python for this kind of work, since I can optimize the entire stack in a single language. Not sure if it’s growing in popularity but it’s really solid for what it does
Me too, and I'd like it to become mainstream. The major problem right now is that it doesn't have anything that is close to Torch or JAX in performance and robustness. Flux et al. are 90% there, but the last 10% requires a massive investment, and Julia doesn't have any corporate juggernaut funding development like Meta or Google.
This is hurting Julia's adoption. The rest of the language is incredibly elegant, as there is no 2-language divide like in Python. Furthermore, it is really performant. With very little effort one can write code that is within 1.5-2x of C++, often closer.
One possibility is that something like Mojo takes Julia's spot. Mojo has some of the advantages of Julia, plus very tight integration with Python, its syntax and its ecosystem. I would still prefer Julia, but this is something to keep in mind.
LLMs massively compound the advantage of existing popular languages, namely python. Any new learner will find it infinitely easier to use sonnet 3.5 to overcome the so called '2 language barrier' for python, while the lacking data for Julia becomes the real barrier.
This issue will remain until LLMs get so smart they can maybe self-iterate and train on a given language. By then though, we'd likely get languages designed and optimized for LLMs.
To back up the sibling comment, I've found ChatGPT quite capable where Julia is concerned. It does hallucinate the occasional standard library function, but a) it gets it right after it's told it was wrong about half the time and b) Julia's documentation is fairly good, so finding what that function is really called is not a big deal.
It can even debug Pkg/build chain problems, which... Julia could use a bit of polish there. On paper the system is quite good, but in practice things like point upgrades of the Julia binary can involve a certain amount of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
For what it's worth I've found Claude Sonnet to work really well with Julia.
One fun exercise was when a friend handed me a stack of well-written, very readable Python code that they were actually using. They were considering rewriting it in C, which would have been worth it if they could get a 10x speedup.
I had Sonnet translate it to Julia, and it literally ran 200x faster, with almost identical syntax.
Could you elaborate? As far as I understand, if you treat it like Python (e.g. use defs and stick with the copy-on-modification default), you'll still see performance improvements without even thinking about memory.
I want to really like Julia. For me it felt like more work than python for simple stuff and not that much less work than c++ if you are trying to get the best performance. It is a cool language though.
It's reasonably popular, growth has continued at a slow but steady pace. It's never going to become Python or anything but it's great in its niche.
We use Julia in our hedge fund, it allows our researchers to write Python-like syntax while being very easy to optimize – compared to numpy code we've had a relatively easy time getting Julia to run 20x-1000x faster depending on the module, which has resulted in a very large reduction in AWS bills.
certainly yes in scientific computing, less so in ML/data science. there's much of the culture of scientific computing in economics -- lot of heavy numerical stuff in addition to the statistical modeling you might expect.
I think my general sense of this article is that all of these have been fixed. The language is relatively new, and the core devs are responsive. Using anything new comes with risks. I think the community appreciated a detailed and generally well-reasoned diagnosis, but at the same time these things are relatively easily addressed.
R is an open source version of S, which was a competitor to SAS.
Julia, from when I looked at it years ago was trying like a new version of Matlab or Mathematica. It was very linear-algebra focused, and were trying to replace those packages plus Fortran. They had some gimmicks like an IDE that would render mathematical notion like TeX for your matrices.
Python wasn't the obvious "Fortran killer" scientific language it is today. In fact it's arguably really weird that Python ended up winning that segment. In any case, I think Julia's been struggling since its inception.
R and S are also very linear algebra focused. R developers just try to make C++ behave like R as much as possible when they need more speed. Hence, Rcpp. Otherwise, we prefer our LISPy paradise.
I was in Austin while Travis Oliphant's wave from numpy led to Anaconda. After that we got to bring them in as consultants. It was wild talking to the team and hearing the inside-track dev info. It isn't a surprise to me that Python, as flexible and glue code as it is, became the Excel language of Scientific Computing.
Mostly the vision and ideals which became Anaconda, conda, and miniconda, as well as the translation of ideas to use cases to implementations, and some ideas that came about later in other forms or libraries (numba, pytorch).
Basically a mini/beta/in-progress version of Pycon each week.
Not at all? Totally different programming paradigm and performance. Certain communities pull towards Julia a lot more than others. Mostly I've seen scientific fields that require HPC but don't want to do everything in FORTRAN and C. Paging Chris Rackauckas!
Fair enough. It probably would make sense to have a Conda like release of Julia that comes out every year with a broad but curated selection of packages.
I don't think you'd actually want to include each of those packages in a standard distro: does the average user really need to programmatically send emails or deal with Voronoi tessellations? Probably not, but I still think there's value in a batteries-included approach, especially when working with students.
