4 ms·

not to sound like a broken record, but Julia has the performance while also having dynamic memory management and an ecosystem close to Python/R (depending on th

not to sound like a broken record, but Julia has the performance while also having dynamic memory management and an ecosystem close to Python/R (depending on the area). Rust is nice when you want something lightweight and fast, since Julia has a pretty heavyweight runtime.

127 6y ago
Julia is cool, but can I have a version where arrays start at zero?
- sc11 6y ago
  No need for another version, Julia supports custom indices by default. Check out https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/offset-arrays/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/offset-arrays/ and https://github.com/JuliaArrays/OffsetArrays.jl https://github.com/JuliaArrays/OffsetArrays.jl
DougBTX 6y ago
Yes, Julia looks very impressive, a language I'd like to try at some point.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
minimaxir 6y ago
"Lightweight and fast" are the key features I'm looking for.
sieste 6y ago
To play an equally broken record: Have julia's ridiculously long precompilation times improved recently?
- eigenspace 6y ago
  Yes, absolutely. Version 1.5 brought significantly faster precompilation and version 1.6 (currently in beta) brings some precompilation speed improvements on top of that as well as multithreaded precompilation, so things have improved a ton in that regard. We're expecting more benefits down the pipe as well with better AOT compilation support so you don't have to redo compilation so much between sessions. Compilation and precompilation latency have been the two most consistent focuses of the developer team over the past couple years.
  - sieste 6y ago
    Thanks, looks like I should give julia a try again.
- snicker7 6y ago
  Version 1.6 (beta) is significantly faster (5-10x on my machine) than 1.5, largely due to code invalidations and parallelism. And 1.5 is faster (in both runtime and compiletime) than earlier versions. I also imagine future iterations will focus on AOT options as well (we already have some in the form of PackageCompiler.jl),

127 6y ago

Julia is cool, but can I have a version where arrays start at zero?

sc11 6y ago
No need for another version, Julia supports custom indices by default. Check out https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/offset-arrays/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/offset-arrays/ and https://github.com/JuliaArrays/OffsetArrays.jl https://github.com/JuliaArrays/OffsetArrays.jl

DougBTX 6y ago

Yes, Julia looks very impressive, a language I'd like to try at some point.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

minimaxir 6y ago

"Lightweight and fast" are the key features I'm looking for.

sieste 6y ago

To play an equally broken record: Have julia's ridiculously long precompilation times improved recently?

eigenspace 6y ago
Yes, absolutely. Version 1.5 brought significantly faster precompilation and version 1.6 (currently in beta) brings some precompilation speed improvements on top of that as well as multithreaded precompilation, so things have improved a ton in that regard. We're expecting more benefits down the pipe as well with better AOT compilation support so you don't have to redo compilation so much between sessions. Compilation and precompilation latency have been the two most consistent focuses of the developer team over the past couple years.
- sieste 6y ago
  Thanks, looks like I should give julia a try again.
snicker7 6y ago
Version 1.6 (beta) is significantly faster (5-10x on my machine) than 1.5, largely due to code invalidations and parallelism. And 1.5 is faster (in both runtime and compiletime) than earlier versions. I also imagine future iterations will focus on AOT options as well (we already have some in the form of PackageCompiler.jl),