I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're asking, but I'll agree with the general principle that often there is a tradeoff between simplicity and performance. Perhaps the biggest advantage of Julia is that you can usually choose which of these matters most to you.
With regards to performance differences: I only meant to indicate that even the "fast" version was still probably several times slower than what's possible. Certainly, you shouldn't worry about this at all if you're talking about fractions of a second. But if you find yourself in a situation where your code runs for hours or days, you might feel differently if the Julia code could run in one-fifth the time of the Mathematica code. --Tim On Sunday, March 16, 2014 05:07:29 PM Stefan Schwarz wrote: > Hello Tim, > > at first I'd like to thank you for your effort. > > the difference from what you've wrote and what I did in Mathematica, > without using special tricks in > order to seize the evaluation system of mathematica specifically is > 0.067124989. > > The total memory Mathematica needed for this operation is: 140928 > > I don't know really if this is much better. A much more clever factoring > algorithm indeed and thank you for that, but I don't see a real gain. > Am I miss something? Plus. To keep my "wizard" conjecture, it is still > much more expressive. Don't you think? > > Stefan
