The language page shows micro benchmarks that Julia is comparable to C in performance, when optimized. I've seen various users of the language report similar ex

The language page shows micro benchmarks that Julia is comparable to C in performance, when optimized. I've seen various users of the language report similar experience for packages they've built. Since C and Rust are similar in performance I would assume Julia is close to Rust in performance. You can also easily verify this yourself by looking at assembly code dumps for JITed Julia functions. You can see that the amount of code would be comparable to that of C for many common scenarios. As for cache and data layout. That GC'd language can't control data layout and cache usage is simply wrong. Best known example is probably Go. You can nest structs to create contiguous blocks of memory in Go, just like in C. You can also create arrays of structs as contiguous blocks of memory. Just because Java and C# doesn't work that way, doesn't mean all GC'd languages are like that. A struct of concrete types in Julia is just like a struct in C in the way it is packed in memory. An array of structs in Julia or a nesting of structs will have similar memory layout as in C. So I know this sounds really odd, but Julia despite being a dynamic language thus allows more optimal memory layout than a statically typed languages such as Java. What is frustrating with promoting Julia, is that it simply sounds way too good to be true, so people dismiss the language before they have actually read up on it. I advice you to read up a bit more on the details of how the language works. It will then become clear why it can pull off stuff which seems far too good to be true.