[patrick451]

>I don't know man, I just tested vscode and it's almost instant, loads every function from multiple files in less than 5 seconds. I'm on a 13-inch intel Mac and Julia 1.11 master (1.9 and 1.10 should be the same).

I know, I'm always "holding it wrong". And that's the problem with julia.

> Having a REPL open is not the same thing as a notebook, if you feel like that, cool I guess.

Both workflows amortize the JIT times away by keeping an in-memory cache compiled code. This makes a lot of smaller scripting tasks untenable in julia. So people chose python instead. That means julia needs a massive advantage elsewhere if they are going to incorporate both languages into their project.

> When developing Julia, the developers chose some design decisions that affected the workflow of using the language. If it doesn't fit your needs that's cool, don't use it. If you are frustrated and like to try the language come to discourse, people are friendly.

This thread was about why julia hasn't seen wider adoption. It's my contention that the original design decisions are a one of the root causes of that.

[ChrisRackauckas]

I just tried it from the Windows command line and this benchmark with the plots ran in what seemed like instant, and some simple timing showed it was under 2 seconds with a fresh Julia v1.10 beta installation. That seems to line up with what amj7e is saying, and I don't think anyone would call the Windows command line the pinnacle of performance? That's not to say Julia's startup is fast, but it has improved pretty significantly for workflows like due to the package caching. It needs to keep improving, and the work to pull OpenBLAS safely out of the default system image will be a major step in that direction, but it's already almost an order of magnitude better than last year in most of the benchmarks that I run.