4 ms·
Yeah I would agree the use cases you mentioned are probably fine for Julia as well. I could be more precise and say that Julia is not relevant for performance-
by skohan 4y ago
Yeah I would agree the use cases you mentioned are probably fine for Julia as well. I could be more precise and say that Julia is not relevant for performance-relevant applications.
The problem with ignoring performance is, many applications can become a dependency of a performance relevant application even if that was not the original intent.
- cjalmeida 4y agoWe recently used Julia to solve (correctly) a super complex scheduling problem for a major airline. Our budget was 5min, Python would get not even close to a solution in that time. The tool is being actively used in production. Julia is not not only fine, but my go to language for performance problems.
- skohan 4y agoOk but comparing with Python is like a worst-case scenario, and long running tasks would amortize Julia’s performance issues. There are a great many use-cases/language comparisons you could find where Julia would be the worse performing language.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- DNF2 4y agoYou seem to confuse performance and latency. High performance is Julia's main selling point. Latency is its Achilles heel. It's being very actively worked on however.
- skohan 4y agoLatency is a type of performance. For instance if you have even a few milliseconds latency it's relevant in terms of UI performance.
- DNF2 4y agoThen you should specify. You made a blanket statement about performance, while using the least commonly considered type. If you just say 'performance', most people will assume you mean throughput.