just my two cents... On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 5:28:24 AM UTC+2, Chris Rackauckas wrote: > > > MATLAB really improved their JIT in 2015b, but as you can see, it cannot > come close to Julia. The main reason is that, although it can do quite a > bit because it ensures type stability, it has type stability only because > everything in MATLAB is by default a complex number. >
This is not correct, a variable is by default double. And extended to be complex if needed. But that's not the point. > So even in the simplest example (where its JIT works correctly. You'll > notice that in many cases it won't work, and since it doesn't cache well it > may recompile all the time, and ... it works okay but there's a reason I > switched to Julia) you'd expect Julia to be at least twice as fast. > I think i have written this before: Julia enables you to write fast code, however it's not automatically faster at a constant factor compared to something. It's not like: matlab does it wrong, julia does it correct and therefore is magically faster. Some people on this mailing list (including myself) already had experiences with julia code running surprisingly slow or with a heavy memory impact (row-first vs. column-first arrays and temporary arrays and similar).
