On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 9:13:21 PM UTC, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > > For me, your latest changes made the time go from 0.13 -> 0.11. It is > strange we have so different performances, but then again 0.3 and 0.4 are > different beasts. > > Adding some calls to slice and another loop gained some perf for me. Can > you try: > > https://gist.github.com/KristofferC/8a8ff33cb186183eea8d >
It's great to see how Julia code can be optimized (and how willing people are to help). I just scanned this thread, but on first read I saw something about loop, but can't find again.. [In this case it was only a small improvement, but not elsewhere?] Anyway answering here: I see code in lines 22-23 replaced by a loop with longer code. It's great to see how in case after case, Julia can not only be optimized but also match C/C++ etc. the languages that use loops. I know about @devec but wander how close Julia is also able to match the speed of its looks with more condensed code or MATLAB-like or functional programming language style. What are the most interesting issue numbers to look at, if you were to try to help? I'm guessing its not one of the easier "up-for-grabs" issues, for relative newbies like me.. Another thing I saw: "String is not a concrete type. Consider ASCIIString or UTF8String. " This would not apply in Python, UTF8, UTF16 etc. could be in a type (a new one that can hold the others through composition?) that "just works" [fast]? Windows uses UTF16 and then choosing UTF8String there would be bad?
