[johnmyleswhite]

The easiest way to think about Julia's performance is closely related to the observations that inspire tracing JIT's for many languages -- most code in dynamic languages doesn't make use of the features that make efficient compilation impossible. Julia's response to that observation was to build a dynamic language that lacked some of the most extreme features in Python or R that act as barriers to efficient compilation.

[simonbyrne]

It's also worth noting that Julia's JIT isn't tracing: it does all its compilation before the code is run (unless it hits a path which hasn't been run before, or wasn't inlined, in which case it runs the compiler again). I've heard it described as "really an ahead-of-time compiler that just runs really, really late".

[vanderZwan]

BTW, is there a write-up of what those blocking features are? I don't recall ever seeing a blog about that. Could be an interesting e"if you want to make a JIT-friendly language, don't do this, do this instead" type of article.

[simonbyrne]

I agree that would be great. The crude answer is: make it easier for a computer to figure out what will happen when you run the code.

The example I usually use is allowing integers to overflow, instead of automatically promoting to arbitrary precision (Python), or converting to a sentinel value (R). Integers are used in a _lot_ of places, so inserting these checks (or worse, access to heap-allocated memory) makes it difficult to optimise. (throwing an error might be a reasonable alternative in some cases).

Another is that you make it easier for the compiler to figure out things about an object, such as its size (e.g. you can declare the types of the fields of a Julia struct) and whether or not it can be mutated (immutable objects are easier to optimise).

[ScottPJones]

I wouldn't use that as a primary example (allowing integers to overflow), because one of the great things about Julia is that it is incredibly easy to define your own types that will simply work, that for example, do checked arithmetic on integers (SaferIntegers.jl, I think is one, or don't want a limit (BigInt, which is included in Julia). Julia gives the programmer the choice, and not only that, allows the programmer to create their own choices.

[vanderZwan]

> The example I usually use is allowing integers to overflow, instead of automatically promoting to arbitrary precision (Python), or converting to a sentinel value (R).

IIRC Julia used to automatically promote integers, is this the main reason why this was dropped?

[simonbyrne]

No, I don't believe integers ever promoted on overflow (or at least not since 2012).

If an operation involves two different integer types, they do promote to the larger one (i.e. an Int64 + a BigInt will give a BigInt).

[vanderZwan]

Oh no, I'm very certain of this: I distinctly recall a github issue where people complained that addding two 32bit integers resulted in a 64bit integer, which was justified as giving more correct answers due to potential integer overflow.

[StefanKarpinski]

You're talking about different types of promotion. `Int32 + Int32` did once upon a time give an `Int64` on 64-bit systems. However, that was true regardless of the values of those integers—it was entirely predictable from their types alone. The type of promotion that's being talked about here is promoting `Int + Int` to `BigInt` but only when the values being added are too big to be stored in an `Int`. Julia has never done that.

[repsilat]

One of them is being able to override `setattr` and `getattr` at runtime in Python. It can be pretty tricky to prove it can't happen, so (unless you have optimistic and pessimistic codepaths) you get into a situation where every attribute lookup makes indirect function calls and hash-table lookups.