3 ms·

Julia also sets an env var JULIA_NUM_THREADS to 4. I’m just guessing what that means... the Python code is painfully unoptimised, the Julia one has plenty of in

Julia also sets an env var JULIA_NUM_THREADS to 4. I’m just guessing what that means... the Python code is painfully unoptimised, the Julia one has plenty of inclining, uses native vector types vs naked lists etc. I feel like Julia, faster though it seems to be, has a massive chip on the shoulder, keeps proving its erm performance is bigger than everyone else. On the benchmarks where Julia is faster, it’s time is in bold. On the one regex one where Python happens to be faster, no bold. I guess outliers can be gleaned over.

igouy 5y ago
> … the Python code is painfully unoptimised… It's not numpy. It's not numba. … https://pybenchmarks.org/ https://pybenchmarks.org/ > in bold A versus B, bold shows when the fastest A program is faster.
- fault1 5y ago
  I will say that pypy nbody benchmark is very impressive, about 25% faster than julia or any other python implementations.
  - igouy 5y ago
    iirc That program was written for pypy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745454
DNF2 5y ago
The Benchmarks Game isn't some Julia project, and it is unreasonable to blame the presentation of results on some 'chip on the shoulder' of Julia the language. The Benchmarks Game is a project that dates back to at least 2002 (https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/sometimes-people-just-make-up-stuff.html#history https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...), a decade before Julia was announced, collects code from many different languages, and lets you filter the results depending on what you are interested in. Go to the website, click on Python, and when selecting the other language, Python's results are in bold. Why should Julia users be criticized for contributing code to a website dedicated to performance benchmarks, but it's ok for Python/Fortran/C/Javascript users to contribute? And why should this contribution from some individual count as evidence of some 'shoulder chip' for the wider language community? (BTW, all benchmarks in all languages appear to be running on 4 cores, so it's not that weird for Julia to set NUM_THREADS to 4.)
- ChrisRackauckas 5y ago
  > (BTW, all benchmarks in all languages appear to be running on 4 cores, so it's not that weird for Julia to set NUM_THREADS to 4.) Yeah, every language is using 4 threads: Java, C++, etc. The odd one out is Python not multithreading because GIL. Getting mad at Julia because Python is an outlier in a benchmark that's not maintained by Julia people is a very weird response to say the least.
IshKebab 5y ago
> On the benchmarks where Julia is faster, it’s time is in bold. On the one regex one where Python happens to be faster, no bold. You realise they didn't put the bold there manually? > the Python code is painfully unoptimised, the Julia one has plenty of inclining, uses native vector types vs naked lists etc. Yeah I agree this comparison is unfair, but who cares? Even if it was fair Julia should be way faster than Python! Python is one of the slowest languages in popular use. Everything should be faster than it. The fact that somebody submitted a comparison to Python in the first place is kind of embarrassing. Like saying "look! my car is faster than a camel!".
- DNF2 5y ago
  You mean the fact that someone submitted this on Hacker News? Yeah, sure, that was quite pointless. Submitting code to Benchmarks Game was fine, though.
  - igouy 5y ago
    Presumably @mardiyah had some reason for wanting to share. Pity they didn't say what it was.
blindseer 5y ago
I agree with this. If you look at the threads on discourse, you'll see a lot of comments on discussions where someone claims Julia isn't fast. I wish there were more meaningful comparisons posted in a more objective manner. I'd like to see comparison that takes into consideration "ability to refactor", "ease of readability", "performance", and a few other (perhaps subjective) metrics. I'm not sure Julia will win out all the time depending on the weights you place on all these metrics.

igouy 5y ago

> … the Python code is painfully unoptimised… It's not numpy. It's not numba. … https://pybenchmarks.org/ https://pybenchmarks.org/ > in bold A versus B, bold shows when the fastest A program is faster.

fault1 5y ago
I will say that pypy nbody benchmark is very impressive, about 25% faster than julia or any other python implementations.
- igouy 5y ago
  iirc That program was written for pypy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13745454

DNF2 5y ago

The Benchmarks Game isn't some Julia project, and it is unreasonable to blame the presentation of results on some 'chip on the shoulder' of Julia the language. The Benchmarks Game is a project that dates back to at least 2002 (https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/sometimes-people-just-make-up-stuff.html#history https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...), a decade before Julia was announced, collects code from many different languages, and lets you filter the results depending on what you are interested in. Go to the website, click on Python, and when selecting the other language, Python's results are in bold. Why should Julia users be criticized for contributing code to a website dedicated to performance benchmarks, but it's ok for Python/Fortran/C/Javascript users to contribute? And why should this contribution from some individual count as evidence of some 'shoulder chip' for the wider language community? (BTW, all benchmarks in all languages appear to be running on 4 cores, so it's not that weird for Julia to set NUM_THREADS to 4.)

ChrisRackauckas 5y ago
> (BTW, all benchmarks in all languages appear to be running on 4 cores, so it's not that weird for Julia to set NUM_THREADS to 4.) Yeah, every language is using 4 threads: Java, C++, etc. The odd one out is Python not multithreading because GIL. Getting mad at Julia because Python is an outlier in a benchmark that's not maintained by Julia people is a very weird response to say the least.

IshKebab 5y ago

> On the benchmarks where Julia is faster, it’s time is in bold. On the one regex one where Python happens to be faster, no bold. You realise they didn't put the bold there manually? > the Python code is painfully unoptimised, the Julia one has plenty of inclining, uses native vector types vs naked lists etc. Yeah I agree this comparison is unfair, but who cares? Even if it was fair Julia should be way faster than Python! Python is one of the slowest languages in popular use. Everything should be faster than it. The fact that somebody submitted a comparison to Python in the first place is kind of embarrassing. Like saying "look! my car is faster than a camel!".

DNF2 5y ago
You mean the fact that someone submitted this on Hacker News? Yeah, sure, that was quite pointless. Submitting code to Benchmarks Game was fine, though.
- igouy 5y ago
  Presumably @mardiyah had some reason for wanting to share. Pity they didn't say what it was.

blindseer 5y ago

I agree with this. If you look at the threads on discourse, you'll see a lot of comments on discussions where someone claims Julia isn't fast. I wish there were more meaningful comparisons posted in a more objective manner. I'd like to see comparison that takes into consideration "ability to refactor", "ease of readability", "performance", and a few other (perhaps subjective) metrics. I'm not sure Julia will win out all the time depending on the weights you place on all these metrics.