3 ms·
That taking 5 seconds is very strange. I have an early Core M (mobile laptop chip, much slower than Core i7, which is a desktop chip) and that expression takes
by StefanKarpinski 8y ago
That taking 5 seconds is very strange. I have an early Core M (mobile laptop chip, much slower than Core i7, which is a desktop chip) and that expression takes 0.7 seconds at a fresh prompt. That's still much worse JIT compilation delay than we'd like it to be, but 5 seconds is either a very bad configuration or perhaps a bit of hyperbole? There are other situations like time-to-first-plot where compile times do cause a really serious delay that is a very real problem—and a top priority to fix.
- aurelian15 8y agoTried again this morning after rebooting the computer -- turns out I was low on RAM yesterday evening. After starting Julia a few times to make sure it is cached I get the following results: time julia -e '[1 2 3; 4 5 6; 7 8 9] ^ 2' real 0m1.629s And for Python/Numpy time python -c 'import numpy as np; print(np.linalg.matrix_power([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]], 2))' real 0m0.103s Edit: Julia Version is 0.6.3, installed directly from the Fedora 28 repositories.
- b2gills 8y agoAnd people think Perl 6 is slow time perl6 -e 'say [1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9] >>**>> 2' [(1 4 9) (16 25 36) (49 64 81)] real 0m0.170s Note that the majority of that time is just loading Perl 6. time perl6 -e 'Nil' real 0m0.156s Perhaps someone could create a slang module for Julia in Perl 6, as that would be a fairly easy way to improve its speed. (Assuming Julia is easy to parse and doesn't have many features that aren't already in Perl 6)