# Should Julia use MLIR in the future?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/should-julia-use-mlir-in-the-future/110459>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** question\
**Created:** [February 20, 2024, 3:25pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/should-julia-use-mlir-in-the-future/110459 "2024-02-20T15:25:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![acxz](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/acxz/32/16759_2.png) [@acxz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/acxz)\
**Post date:** [June 28, 2025, 12:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/should-julia-use-mlir-in-the-future/110459/20 "2025-06-28T12:37:30Z")

</div>

@wsmoses I’m going to link to this comment you made on another post due to its relevancy. I believe folks that find this thread will appreciate the following comment:

> [@Will Reactant.jl become a machine learning framework?](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/will-reactant-jl-become-a-machine-learning-framework/125478/6):
>
> Reactant is emphatically not an autodiff tool. Of course you can use Enzyme from inside it just like you can use it within Julia presently (now it will use EnzymeMLIR instead of EnzymeLLVM). Reactant is a tool to compile Julia code in a way that preserves high level structure and semantics (e.g. understanding that Base.mul! is a matmul, and not just a bunch of for loops), getting rid of type instabilities, and generally compiling away performance and usability pitfalls in Julia. It does so by e…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/should-julia-use-mlir-in-the-future/110459)._