3 ms·

So the compile times gotten better, but still are quite slow in comparison?

• adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  In comparison to what? I've found that it's very responsive in a repl/notebook for interactive work (especially with Revise). It's not good for running short scripts, but if you have something that's doing some real work, the compilation often isn't a big deal.
• fault1 5y ago
  Personally, I think interactive usage has improved quite a bit. I don't "feel" it that badly in 1.7. It was bad enough earlier in the 1.0 series that I stopped using it for a while (I used it before <1.0 as well). I think the problems were from: 1) llvm itself getting dramatically slower over time, before more focus upstream on compiler speed more recently: https://www.npopov.com/2020/05/10/Make-LLVM-fast-again.html https://www.npopov.com/2020/05/10/Make-LLVM-fast-again.html 2) different types of invalidations 3) less than ideal precompilation of packages I think all of it has been improved, and can certainly be improved further. That also includes improving the speed of its interpreter (vs the JIT), which exists but was never optimized for speed afaik.