Julia is not as "mature" as VBA, which prevents "analysts" of large firms
adopting it.
In addition, they will be happier to continue using global variables.
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:14:37 AM UTC+2, Eric Forgy wrote:
>
> I mentioned to Prof. Edelman (only half jokingly) at an event in
> Singapore, that we should add Excel/VBA to the list of benchmarks.
>
> If I'm in a corporate setting and trying to sell Julia for some internal
> project, the person making the call has probably never heard of any of the
> languages in the Julia benchmark, but they have heard of Excel/VBA, so, as
> silly as it may seem, I actually think it could go a long way for Julia
> evangelists to see more comparisons to Excel/VBA.
>
> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:45:24 AM UTC+8, hustf wrote:
>>
>> It is nice to have a little check on speed from time to time. I still use
>> VBA for easy cooperation with less programming savvy colleguaes.
>>
>> Julia 1.17s.
>> VBA (excel alt + f11): 12 s.
>>
>> This is a bit unfair to neolithic man Joel Spolsky since no optimization
>> was performed:
>>
>> Sub benchmark()
>> nsamples = 1000000
>> Dim y() As Double
>> ReDim y(1 To nsamples)
>> x = y
>> For i = 1 To nsamples
>> x(i) = (i - 1) * 5 / (nsamples - 1)
>> Next
>> Debug.Print ("\nBrutal-force loops, 100 times:")
>> sngtime = Timer
>> For m = 1 To 100
>> For n = 1 To nsamples
>> y(n) = Cos(2 * x(n) + 5)
>> Next
>> Next
>> Debug.Print Timer - sngtime
>> End Sub
>>
>>
