|
|
|
|
|
by Syzygies
33 days ago
|
|
Julia is reasonably fast. I returned to a language comparison project specific to my math research, to see how I might do better. My agents and I studied the advice in the post and various more recent links from the comments, but we were already mostly on target and nothing left moved the needle. My work is more combinatorial. Julia does excel at numerical computation. There's a tribal divide in math between people who can't go 30 seconds away from the real or complex numbers, and those whose tolerance is about that long. I try to keep an open mind, but I'm closer to the second camp. Julia is good enough to consider either way. A development in recent months, AI can assist in general purpose Lean 4 programming, no longer getting confused by the dominant proof-oriented training corpus. If one is a functional programmer who believes that Haskell was on the right track, then Lean is the most interesting language choice for shaping one's thoughts. Benchmarks are inherently misleading if a better language makes it possible to express algorithms out of reach of more primitive languages. https://github.com/Syzygies/Compare C++ 100 13.08s ±0.08s
Rust 99 13.16s ±0.02s
Julia 90 14.54s ±0.01s
F# 90 14.54s ±0.04s
Kotlin-native 88 14.79s ±0.01s
Kotlin 86 15.18s ±0.01s
Scala 79 16.50s ±0.08s
Scala-native 76 17.14s ±0.02s
Nim 65 20.17s ±0.01s
Swift 64 20.54s ±0.04s
Ocaml 52 25.38s ±0.04s
Chez 49 26.64s ±0.02s
Haskell 37 34.96s ±0.06s
Lean 29 45.39s ±0.15s
|
|