3 ms·
My initial thoughts as well. It's hard to think about going back to manual looping. Seemed like a step backwards even. This article changed my opinion quite a
by elcritch 11y ago
My initial thoughts as well. It's hard to think about going back to manual looping. Seemed like a step backwards even.
This article changed my opinion quite a bit and highlights the power of having a real macro system:
http://julialang.org/blog/2013/09/fast-numeric/ http://julialang.org/blog/2013/09/fast-numeric/
I've begun to leverage the points made in the article quite a bit. Alas, now I get stuck when writing numpy based code because it constrains my ability to express a solution in the best suited idiom.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoI just glanced through that document. Some thoughts (which may be stupid). > Devectorize expressions Why can't a compiler/whatever do this devectorisation for us if it is faster - I see that there is a macro package for this why not do it as standard? > Write cache-friendly codes Well duh. > Identify opportunities to use BLAS Is this not what numpy does already? I suppose my real question about Julia is. Why? Why not put the effort into optimising numpy or making fortran a little more convenient to use rather than making a whole new special snowflake language just for one set of problems.