3 ms·
From the comments on that: > No one should use global scope of Julia for calculations: [...] which is said that takes 35 seconds. > If you wrap it in a functi
by improbable22 7y ago
From the comments on that:
> No one should use global scope of Julia for calculations: [...] which is said that takes 35 seconds.
> If you wrap it in a function and not had a type instability, You'd get 4.704 seconds...
Half-decently written Julia ought not to be much slower than C.
But it does also allow you to write quick and dirty scripts with no care for speed, which is also useful. It would be nice if people wouldn't benchmark the latter. The manual has a pretty helpful section for avoiding this: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/performance-tips/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/performance-tips/
- montalbano 7y agoIndeed, I would imagine that well written Julia is on par with LuaJIT. Even more importantly, from a cursory look online I cannot find any Lua implementation of either the Mittag-Leffler function or Inverse Laplace routines. And there is no reference to any wider ecosystem of scientific computing packages. Sure I could call some C functions but then I'm back to facing a 2-language problem which I don't want. Furthermore, it looks like there has been no new releases of LuaJIT since 2017. Development on it looks to have stopped.
- Rochus 7y agoIf you can measure you don't have to imagine.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]