There are no limitations inherent to the language. That said, string processing is currently a little slow, though there are concrete plans to fix that. We can't really say whether those problems are at work here without looking at the code. It might very well, be something else that is simple to fix.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Rich Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a small (~200 LOC) Ruby script which I've been using to > process a rather large file. This takes ~1.5 hours, so I've been > looking around for alternatives. Julia claims to be fast and I > have been wanting to play with it, so I gave it a try. Sadly, my > Julia version is slower than the original (Ruby 1.8.6) script! > > data Ruby Julia > lines secs. secs. > ===== ===== ===== > 1e3 0.09 10.38 > 1e4 0.55 10.94 > 1e5 5.26 16.18 > 1e6 53.24 68.62 > 1e7 336.53 413.83 > > I'm using both languages as executable script files on Mac OS X, > via a shebang line (#!/usr/bin/env ...). I expected Julia's > startup latency to kill it for small runs (and it does :-), but > I was expecting that this would be amortized in larger runs. > > Before I jump into a bunch of optimization and parallelization, > I thought I should ask whether Julia has inherent limitations on > I/O and/or string manipulation that curtail its performance. > > -r >
