help-octave
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Julia


From: Sergei Steshenko
Subject: Re: Julia
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:12:30 -0700 (PDT)




----- Original Message -----
> From: John W. Eaton <address@hidden>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> Cc: Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden>; "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Julia
> 
> On  3-Apr-2012, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> 
> | (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 ?
> 
> Or maybe it makes sense to make Octave's interpreter do what Julia
> does, at least as much as is possible?
> 
> jwe
>

It depends - really. If Octave -> Julia translator is made, then _both_ Octave 
and Julia (if they are ever created) packages can be used in one's program.

Or one will have to/can use low level (i.e. LLVM in this case) package 
representation, but it's more hassle/overhead for end user.
...
FWIW, if you folks don't know this yet, LLVM can be used as C++ -> "C" 
translator - it's written in the LLVM FAQ.
...
Further deviating from the topic - in the Julia discussion (from which this 
thread started) somebody mentions GSL shell (based on Lua) _and_ Lua JIT 
compiler - the person says that with the JIT compiler it's really fast.

Regards,
  Sergei.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]