[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.
- Julia, Juan Pablo Carbajal, 2012/04/02
- Re: Julia, Sergei Steshenko, 2012/04/02
- Re: Julia, Sergei Steshenko, 2012/04/03
- Re: Julia, John W. Eaton, 2012/04/03
- Re: Julia,
Sergei Steshenko <=