Re: Julia

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> To: Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden>; "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 11:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Julia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden>
>>  To: address@hidden
>>  Cc: 
>>  Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 6:26 PM
>>  Subject: Julia
>> 
>>  Continuing with a comment from Carlo about this new language Julia
>> 
>>  http://www.johnmyleswhite.com/notebook/2012/03/31/julia-i-love-you/
>> 
>>  It is a pity that they use ML as reference instead of Octave...
>> 
>>  -- 
>>  M. Sc. Juan Pablo Carbajal
>>  -----
>>  PhD Student
>>  University of Zürich
>>  http://ailab.ifi.uzh.ch/carbajal/
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Help-octave mailing list
>>  address@hidden
>>  https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
>> 
> 
> How/why does it matter (MatLab <-> Octave) in this case ?
> 
> Reading http://julialang.org/ I see that in the benchmarks Matlab is faster. 
> As 
> languages Matlab and Octave are very similar.
> 
> Regards,
>   Sergei.
> 

(kinda talking to myself) - since Julia appears to be fast (because it uses 
advanced architecture based on LLVM ?), maybe it makes sense Octave to Julia 
(i.e. source to source) translator ?

And in such a manner to hopefully keep Julia's speed and gain access 
to/usability of octave-forge packages ?

Regards,
  Sergei.