HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
deeplearning4j
libnd4j
HISTORICAL RECORD2016–2018
deeplearning4j / libnd4j · Not publicly available

libnd4j

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

2Distinct people
9Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 2:59:53 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month9 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-02-01 07:11:21 UTC to 2018-02-18 23:11:01 UTC.

0122016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsFeb 20162016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsFeb 2018

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 20162016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Mar 20162016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20162016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20162016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20162016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20162016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20162016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Sep 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20162016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20162016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20172017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20172017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20172017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20172017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20172017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20182018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

2 sources
Few things about netlib-java. 1: It's a read only repository now. It's retired. Lack of maintenance will hurt its long term prospects. 2. The license on net lib java's native binaries are not commercial friendly 3. Net lib java does everything on heap with double arrays, we do everything off heap. There's no copying to worry about, and there's a lot lower latency and flexibility with our data buffers. 4. Due to javacpp we have better control and interop with other c++ libraries like opencv. This makes it easier to write native code and use it from java later on. This allowed us to write and maintain all of our own c/c++ code with the same api (see: nd4j there) - https://github.com/deeplearning4j/libnd4j So yes it ends up being faster in practice for a lot of scenarios. Aside from that, we also have more control over the blas libaries we
Read the rest
pick. This means we also have access to cublas as well as (see below) more configuration and flexibility. Net lib java tries to be "pure" which, while elegant, isn't practical if you want to benefit from gpus and DL. We implemented the proper shims to make things "just work" from the user's perspective there on top of having more flexibility (see: mkls opemp knobs etc) Nd4j has its own built in garbage collector and memory management which means we don't have to worry about any strange work arounds when working with cpus/gpus and we can keep off heap buffers in a managed manner. See: http://deeplearning4j.org/workspaces http://deeplearning4j.org/native In general, "just blas" isn't enough. I know from personal experience. I wrote nd4j after trying to use every java library for matrix compute and all of them fell flat in terms of speed, interop with other c++ libraries, and the need to use java arrays was highly limiting. Over the years, we built up nd4j to handle harder scenarios. This includes other features like distributed parameter servers among other things. Other things aside: I like what breeze attempted but it ultimately didn't scratch the itch for me when I was looking hard at the various java matrix libraries (I've tried all of them) When I originally built out nd4j, it has this backend architecture: http://nd4j.org/backend.html It was so we could just use whatever matrix backend we wanted. None of them worked well enough due to the flexibility we needed. I also had an inherent problem with java based for loops in any setting. We wrote our own forkjoin implementation as well attempting to make it fast and it just couldn't beat plain c. We've found especially after matrices of size 128 x 128 or so, we hands down beat every JVM out there no matter what language is. The last bit we are working on are smaller matrices. The other problem we're working on is our sparse support could use some work. The basics are in there but it's not quite ready for prime time yet. After that, (I'm obviously biased) I don't see how anything could compete with us. Especially after we add our autodiff/pytorch like stack on top of all these primitives. Hope that helps!
In ScalaNLP – A suite of machine learning and numerical computing libraries
David did a great job with ScalaNLP. It happens to depend on Breeze. I would point out that Breeze does not support n-dimensional arrays (most tensors), although that is necessary to do in deep learning. We wrote ND4S and ScalNet to solve that: https://github.com/deeplearning4j/nd4s https://github.com/deeplearning4j/scalnet Moving computation out of Spark's MLlib and into lower level code like C++, as we do with JavaCPP and libnd4j, also improves speed. https://github.com/deeplearning4j/libnd4j https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp
In ScalaNLP – A suite of machine learning and numerical computing libraries

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.