9 ms·
> the JIT compile times made it unfeasible Worth trying again unless that was in the last 18 months. Precompilation has gotten dramatically faster, like 50x im
by samatman 3y ago
> the JIT compile times made it unfeasible
Worth trying again unless that was in the last 18 months. Precompilation has gotten dramatically faster, like 50x improvement in load times faster. So has startup time in general, `time julia -e "return 5"` gave 161 milliseconds of user time on my computer. I don't actually use Julia for simple script munging, simply because I'm used to Python in that role and it works fine, but it's suitable for it.
Calculator-like use? Julia, all the way. Of course I keep the REPL open at all times. Gotta use tools the way they're intended, y'know?
- the__alchemist 3y agoI'll give it a shot! I've been tracking a steady stream of published improvements this area over the years (decade?) I think the most striking moment I had was when I realized through experiment that rust, which has a notoriously slow compiler, was faster to compile and run a small plotting program than Julia. That was ~5 years ago though!
- samatman 3y agoEntirely different language when it comes to compile times, they were tremendously successful in the time-to-first-plot project. 1.6 was the release in 2021 that made the biggest difference, but with steady improvement since. The big push now is to add everything needed so that making object/dylib code in Julia of comparable size to the usual systems languages is possible. The team has a track record of finishing what they start, I'm optimistic that they'll get that right as well.