On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 7:23:40 PM UTC+2, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > > On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 1:12:00 PM UTC-4, Steven Sagaert wrote: >> >> That wasn't what I was saying. I like the philosophy behind julia. But in >> practice (as of now) even in julia you still have to code in a certain >> style if you want very good performance and that's no different than in any >> other language. >> > > The goal of Julia is not to be a language in which it is *impossible* to > write slow code, or a language in which all programming styles are equally > fast. >
I didn't say that was a goal of Julia but it sure would be nice to have though :) but probably an impossible dream. > The goal (or at least, one of the goals) is to be an expressive, > high-level dynamic language, in which it is also *possible* to write > performance-critical inner-loop code. > > That *is* different from other high-level languages, in which it is > typically *not* possible to write performance-critical inner-loop code > without dropping down to a lower-level language (C, Fortran, Cython...). > If you are coding exclusively in Python or R, and there isn't an optimized > function appropriate for the innermost loops of your task at hand, you are > out of luck. > like I said: I like Julia and I am rooting for it but just to play devil's advocate: I believe it's also a goal (& possibility) of numba to write c-level efficient code in Python. All you have to do add an annotation here and there.
