On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 06:14:22PM +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I never said the benchmarks chosen were awesome...  :-)  What I'm saying
> > is this:
> > 
> > 1. Insistence that the most efficient python implementation of Fib
> >    completely misses the point (and defeats the purpose) of the
> >    benchmarks, and as such the entire article is lost in the weeds.
> The point of the benchmarks is to highlight how great Julia is

For a particular set of common code patterns.  You left that part out, 
and it's the crux of the issue.

> and why people should choose it over Python.

I'd argue not why, but WHEN.  Or really I'd argue nothing of the
sort... and simply point out that the benchmarks do exactly what the
Julia team say they do.  It's up to you to decide how useful that is.

> The point of the article is to show how to take badly written, 
> unidiomatic, slow code written in Python, and modify it to be better, 
> faster code competitive (if not faster than) Julia, while remaining 
> within the Python ecosystem.

Even if that was the point, the article fails, because it compares
non-optimized Julia code to optimized Pyhton code.

> We aren't limited to the two options the benchmarks suggest

It actually suggested quite a lot more than that... benchmarks
compared the performance of 12 languages, using exactly the same
programming patterns (as near as I can tell anyway, I didn't
scrutinize all of the code).


Reply via email to