These are my thoughts exactly. I used Matlab because it was a convenient, easy way to get results, but the warts in the design are real. Julia, besides being convenient and easy, is a pleasure to program in.
-- mb On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think performance is the only thing Julia has going for it over > Matlab. Julia has multiple dispatch, a sophisticated type system, macros, > and functions can modify arrays and other mutable objects. I'm unaware of > any plan for Matlab to add these things--they would be major changes and > possibly very confusing for long-time users. > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 7:18:43 AM UTC-4, Kris De Meyer wrote: >> >> On a slightly different note, in 2 or 3 release cycles, Matlab will have >> caught up on any performance gains Julia may have introduced (by using the >> same LLVM compiler procedures Julia uses) and then the only thing Julia >> will have going for it is that it's free. But my cost to my employers is >> such that if I lose as little as 3 days a year on compatibility issues, >> they would be better off paying for a Matlab license... >> >> Best. >> >> Kris >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 10:58:30 PM UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski >> wrote: >>> >>> You can try using @code_warntype to see if there are type instabilities. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> If you don't have deprecation warnings I would suspect some change in >>>> 0.4 has introduced type instabilities. If you are using typed >>>> concatenations you could be hit by >>>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/13254. >>>> >>>> >>>> Den torsdag 22 oktober 2015 kl. 23:03:00 UTC+2 skrev Kris De Meyer: >>>>> >>>>> Are there any general style guidelines for moving code from 0.3.11 to >>>>> 0.4.0? Running the unit and functionality tests for a module that I >>>>> developed under 0.3.11 in 0.4, I experience a 500 times slowdown of blocks >>>>> of code that I time with @time. >>>>> >>>>> Can't even imagine where I have to start looking, and find it >>>>> flabbergasting that perfectly valid julia code under 0.3.11 (not >>>>> generating >>>>> a single warning) can show such a performance degradation under 0.4.0. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone seen anything similar? Is there some fundamental difference in >>>>> how code is JIT-compiled under 0.4.0? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Kris >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
