4 ms·
> I get stuck at the same point: the slow startup time… The language maintainers steadfastly refuse to include ahead-of-time compilation. They seem super focu
by classified 6y ago
> I get stuck at the same point: the slow startup time…
The language maintainers steadfastly refuse to include ahead-of-time compilation. They seem super focused on their narrow use case scenario and ignore everything outside that.
- socialdemocrat 6y agoIt is not nice to lie about people like that. They have never refused to do that and in fact you can already do ahead-of-time compilation in Julia. Many of us have already done it. It is not great yet, but it is an ongoing problem, which they constantly work on and improve. Claiming they refuse to do it is either ignorant or a flat out lie.
- classified 6y ago> It is not great yet, but it is an ongoing problem, which they constantly work on and improve. That's just it. This effort has been dragging on for years now, slow as molasses in winter. If it were a regular goal it would have been a solved problem long ago. That hacks and workarounds for this have been deemed acceptable for so long just goes to show that it's not on the list.
- dunefox 6y agoPlease show me a source where they outright refuse AOT compilation.
- classified 6y agoThey don't have to outright say, "we refuse". Not doing this obvious step for years and years and years clearly shows their priorities lie elsewhere.
- Sukera 6y agoI'm sorry if I'm blunt, but the last year of compiler improvements have been nothing but targeted for this exact purpose? That's half of all spent time since 1.0! The issue tracker is filled to the brim with PRs and issues about making _everything_ faster. How does this constitute "refusal of a obvious step" for you?