HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
zer0n
deepframeworks
AI & Machine Learning2015–2017
zer0n / deepframeworks

deepframeworks

Evaluation of Deep Learning Frameworks

13Distinct people
13Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Evaluation of Deep Learning Frameworks

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

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

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 6:01:08 PM 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 month13 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-11-12 22:35:00 UTC to 2017-04-20 20:38:39 UTC.

0123452015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 5 submissions, 0 commentsNov 20152015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 3 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-01 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): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 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 commentsJul 20162016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 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): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsApr 2017

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
Nov 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC550
Dec 20152015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC330
Jan 20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 20162016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
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 UTC101
May 20162016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
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 UTC000
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 UTC000
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 UTC202
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

2 sources
It all depends on what your goals are. If you just want to train a neural network on a dataset you have and you aren't all that interested in going into the details of how the NN works or is trained, Keras is fine. It has a nice high-level interface and the backend is either in Theano or Tensorflow (your choice). If your problem is more complicated and you want to use some unique architecture, you'll have to use one of the more low-level frameworks. I would recommend Tensorflow just on the basis of its popularity (you're more likely to find people who have run into the some problems as you). But Theano, Torch, and MXNet are probably pretty much equivalent in terms of speed and ease of use. I hear Caffe has a steeper learning curve. If you're really doing something fancy, then you'll have to look into more detail. Torch and MXNet hav
Read the rest
e the advantage that you can adaptively change your computation graph based on the data, but you'd probably have to be pretty far into deep learning research before something like that is useful. Tensorflow Fold does something similar, but I'm not sure how well integrated it is with the rest of Tensorflow (I've never used it). You might also take a look at this: https://github.com/zer0n/deepframeworks It's a little out of date now, but it'll get you started. Some of these frameworks are more general than others (e.g., Tensorflow is more general than Keras), so you can specify architectures in some that you can't in others. But as long as you can specify the architecture in a particular framework, you'll be able to get a working model. Your choice of framework just comes down to whatever one is easiest to work with for the problem at hand.
In Ask HN: Does it matter which deep learning framework I use?
As with most programming questions, the answer is a combination of yes and no, and that depends on the level of abstraction provided by the framework. I started off using Caffe/Torch and currently use mostly Keras for most of my deep learning related experiments. With a more base level framework, I actually could tinker with different moving components to understand why they are used as they are, while with a higher level abstraction, I can concentrate on the problem at hand, knowing that most basic abstractions (or building blocks) are well developed already and have more or less been battle tested by people far smarter than me. And of course, when it comes to pure speed numbers and architecture for scaling/deployment, these frameworks do vary among themselves: https://github.com/zer0n/deepframeworks/blob/master/README.m...
In Ask HN: Does it matter which deep learning framework I use?

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.