[ZeroCool2u]

I'm not a huge Julia user, but typically if they don't specifically mention they're segmenting runtime from compilation time with Julia, that's a bit of a red flag, because unlike Rust, Go, or C++ the compilation step isn't separate in Julia. To the user it just looks like it's running, when in reality it's compiling, then running, without really letting you know in between.

[cygx]

In the matrix multiplication example, the measurement is done via a simple

    t = time()
    results = calc(n)
    elapsed = time() - t

So startup time at least isn't included.

One might argue that this is still biased against Julia due to its compilation strategy, but fixing that would mean you'd have to figure out what the appropriate way to get 'equivalent' timings for any of the other languages would be as well - something far more involved than just slapping a timer around a block of code in all cases...

edit: As pointed out below, the Julia code should indeed already have been 'warmed up' due to a preceding sanity check. My apologies for 'lying'...

[3JPLW]

The problem is a minor placement issue for the `@simd` macro: https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks/pull/317

[komuher]

If u cant even read code dont lie xD

    n = length(ARGS) > 0 ? parse(Int, ARGS[1]) : 100
    left = calc(101)  # <------- THIS IS COLD START JITTING CALL
    right = -18.67
    if abs(left - right) > 0.1
        println(stderr, "$(left) != $(right)")
        exit(1)
    end

    notify("Julia (no BLAS)\t$(getpid())")
    t = time()
    results = calc(n)
    elapsed = time() - t
    notify("stop")

[stabbles]

not sure why this was downvoted to oblivion, as it seems to be correct

[detaro]

presumably because of the tone.