Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Thanks, Stefan, it's good to know this already exists! Seeing it mentioned side-by-side with an Bloomberg API indicates that this feature request probably came from the financial industry. -Zhong On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:50:51 PM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Julia Computing

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Zhong, people chop wood and they play the piano, too. Fill in Julia or Excel where you like. Sisyphuss, VBA show a 4% speed GAIN through making nsamples and y() public variables. Try it out!

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Julia Computing offers a product (JuliaInXL) which does exactly this. On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Zhong Pan wrote: > Eric, hustf, > > I think making Julia attractive to Excel/VBA users will be quite valuable. > Excel still rules in business world for simple to moderately

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Eric, hustf, I think making Julia attractive to Excel/VBA users will be quite valuable. Excel still rules in business world for simple to moderately complex data analysis. Strangely, even engineers love it - there is still a large group of hardware/mechanical engineers who are not productive

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

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 >

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

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()

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Since I contributed the Numba JIT timing earlier in the thread, it seems only fair to note that the modified Julia version with the properly preallocated data is now 17% faster than the Numba version on my computer. Overall, this seems to support my thesis that good Julia code is on par or

Re: [julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Given the apparent interest in the topic and the decisions that people seem to be making, it seems worth pointing out that folks are still using apples-to- oranges comparisons on this benchmark. There are at least two important differences: - in the other languages, `linspace` allocates a

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Agree that while raw speed is important, in most situations it wouldn't be the most important reason to choose one programming language over another. I came from the angle of an engineer in a small company. For myself, the main attraction of Julia was the easiness to achieve decent speed

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

I haven't done any systematic benchmarking since Numba introduced the ability to JIT compile entire classes. In my experience, very well written Julia code is usually equivalent or better (in cases when @simd is helpful) compared to Numba JIT'd code. The Python code is sometimes easier to

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Interesting. Did you use the updated Julia code? Have you done any comparisons between reading and writing Numba JIT classes and Julia types in tight loops? On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:41:48 AM UTC-4, dexto...@gmail.com wrote: > > Just for the sake of comprehensiveness, I ran your Python

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Just for the sake of comprehensiveness, I ran your Python benchmark through the Numba JIT library (which uses the same underlying LLVM infrastructure that Julia does) and on my computer the Python code is faster than Julia by 68%. Vanilla CPython is terrible for this kind of simple explicit

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Dear Zhong, I understand your points very well... as I said I also love and use Julia. But at this point I understood that the *only* thing that was discussed was speed. And in that matter, a factor 1.6 is still a big difference. In my case I'm willing to use it instead of fortran right now,

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Zong, we would be pleased to increment the tally of Julia users with your use. On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:00:02 PM UTC-4, Zhong Pan wrote: > > Ferran, > > I can totally understand Fortran is still the king of fast and efficient > numerical calculation in terms of computation time and

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Ferran, I can totally understand Fortran is still the king of fast and efficient numerical calculation in terms of computation time and memory usage. As to "fast", I am comparing Julia main to high-level languages like Python, R, and Matlab which offers similar level of fast prototyping.

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

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

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

btw, I use Julia also, and I really like it very much :)

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Chris, Thanks for the comments! I tried @inbounds and @fastmath, which reduced Julia execution time from 2.55 sec to 2.46 sec. @simd wouldn't be appropriate here as the point is to test brute-force loops that in reality are employed in calculations that cannot be vectorized. (And yes, I agree

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Also: it's "brute force", not "brutal-force". The connotation is quite different :). On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-7, Zhong Pan wrote: > > Thanks to all the helpful comments. Just for the sake of tidiness, I > attached rev 3 of the (now even simpler) benchmark result PDF. > >

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

You should add @inbounds and try adding @fastmath to the Julia code. Maybe @simd, though the compiler should be doing that automatically. Make sure Julia is compiling with -O3. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets nearly to C++. If you want to put the random number generation back in, you can

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 6:38:13 PM UTC+2, Sisyphuss wrote: > > It's surprising to see Python so slow and Matlab so fast. > > Matlab: does the JIT compiler translate the loops to C? > Not to C, rather directly to machine code. LLVM seems to be in use here, also.

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

It's surprising to see Python so slow and Matlab so fast. Python: maybe it will get much faster when using comprehension? Matlab: does the JIT compiler translate the loops to C? On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 2:09:28 PM UTC+2, David Barton wrote: > > For reference, with Matlab 2016a: 4.97 sec;

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Thanks to all the helpful comments. Just for the sake of tidiness, I attached rev 3 of the (now even simpler) benchmark result PDF. Changes are: * Removed random number generation as it was pointed out that random generators are relatively complex, and difference in implementation can lead to

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

David, Thanks for the test results and the correction - now I recall how it's done in Matlab. Haven't been using it for a while. :-) -Zhong On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 7:09:28 AM UTC-5, David Barton wrote: > > For reference, with Matlab 2016a: 4.97 sec; Julia 0.4.6: 2.76 sec; Python > 3.5.1:

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

For reference, with Matlab 2016a: 4.97 sec; Julia 0.4.6: 2.76 sec; Python 3.5.1: 166.76 sec. Note that there is a mistake in your Matlab code - zeros(n) returns an n by n matrix of zeros (hence running out of memory). Instead you want zeros(1, n) to get a vector. David On Monday, 11 July

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Hi Andreas, Thanks for the comments. * If someone has a more recent Matlab it'll be interesting to try. The license is so expensive and I don't have access to newer version now. * Yes you are right, I also realized that I don't know how much the random number generator implementation

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

2 small things: * a more recent Matlab should already be faster, especially in this loop thing * random generators' runtime -depending on the complexity they spend- really makes a difference.

[julia-users] Re: A Very Simple Benchmark for Brutal-force Loops in Several Languages: revised, Julia is fast!

Hi Zhong, you may want to check out Julia 0.5, on my box your benchmark is ~13% faster with Julia 0.5: 3.367658 seconds with Julia 0.4.6 and 2.898068 seconds with Julia 0.5. Bye, Mosè Hi, > > Sorry I have to post a revision so quickly. Just after I posted my > previous benchmark, I found