3 ms·

I've been using it in production since version 0.5. It's a joy for creating high performance numerical code without having to leave the comfort of a productive

I've been using it in production since version 0.5. It's a joy for creating high performance numerical code without having to leave the comfort of a productive and interactive scientific computing environment. Perhaps surprisingly it's also a great glue language, where I think it does a better job of replacing shell scripts than python.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ivirshup 8y ago
I do love Julia, but start up and import time can make scripting a little rough. Hopefully PackageCompiler.jl will solve that soon.
- staticfloat 8y ago
  If you haven't yet, you should check out a build of 1.0. The start-up time is _greatly_ improved. Basic startup time is twice as fast as ipython for me now: $ time ipython -c '1+1' Out[1]: 2 real 0m0.493s user 0m0.401s sys 0m0.063s $ time julia -e '1+1' real 0m0.222s user 0m0.115s sys 0m0.101s Yes, python itself is still much faster. I compare against ipython just because that used to be my go-to interactive shell for technical computing.
  - ivirshup 8y ago
    That's pretty cool! I never had to much of an issue with the startup time for interactive computing though. It mainly has come up as an issue when I was writing short scripts that could be run a couple dozen times in serial. The real question is how long does `using Plots` take in v1.0?