4 ms·
To demonstrate how slow the startup time is, here’s the respective times for executing ‘print(1)’ from Bash and from REPL on my machine: REPL: julia> @tim
by throwawaymath 8y ago
To demonstrate how slow the startup time is, here’s the respective times for executing ‘print(1)’ from Bash and from REPL on my machine:
REPL:
julia> @time print(1)
1 0.000031 seconds (7 allocations: 272 bytes)
Bash:
$ time ./julia -e 'print(1)'
1
real 0m0.184s
user 0m0.156s
sys 0m0.168s
So yes, that’s a slow launch time. If you use Julia in a shell script and it’s starting up Julia on each calculation it will be brutally slow. Five orders of magnitude slower, in this case.
- agumonkey 8y agohonestly, parent had a use case in mind but it's ultra orthogonal with julia's goals. They're aiming at large numerical problems.. as I said above, if you need julia to make a quick one shot computation in a bash script loop, by all means use something else. But my bet is that anybody reading about julia is planning to do the heavy work inside of it, in which init time will probably be insignificant. It's a bit annoying it's true, a well featured language with dynamic/repl appeal that is not in the ms launch time. But alas..
- throwawaymath 8y agoTotally agreed, I'm a fan of Julia. I just wanted to comment with the delta between startup time and actual execution for passerby.