[hexo]

I dont buy these results at all. Julia at second place looks like plain lie and complete nonsense, to the point I'm gonna look into this and run it myself.

After trying hard to use julia for about a year and I came to conclusion it's one of the slowest things around. Maybe the stuff changed? Maybe, but julia code still remains incorrect.

I hope they fix both things, speed (including start up speed, it counts A LOT) and correctness.

[ChrisRackauckas]

Note that these benchmarks include compilation time for Julia, while it does not include compilation time for C, Rust, etc.

[igouy]

Julia is presented like this —

“Julia features optional typing, multiple dispatch, and good performance, achieved using type inference and just-in-time (JIT) compilation, implemented using LLVM.”

Julia 1.7 Documentation, Introduction

https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/

[ChrisRackauckas]

Yes, because it's all set for prime time in the next release.

"Julia features optional typing, multiple dispatch, and good performance, achieved using type inference and just-in-time (JIT) compilation (and optional ahead-of-time compilation), implemented using LLVM."

https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1.9-dev/

So it'll be updated when v1.9 comes out? Anyways, it's a somewhat interesting thing that Julia still gets 3rd even though it's measuring compilation time.

[igouy]

Tell us when it becomes achieved using ahead-of-time compilation (and optional just-in-time (JIT) compilation).