Re: Question

[LachlanA]

John W. Eaton wrote
> On 07/07/2016 08:07 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 11:27 +0300, Dominic O'Kane wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if it might be easier to have a built in parser that
>>> can convert octave code to C
>>
>> No, it's not easier.
> 
> And...

OK, so JIT is the way to go.  Once 4.2.0 is out, should we have a big push
for better performance?  The benchmark times at [http://julialang.org] are
truly embarrassing:

                         Julia       Octave
                        0.4.0      4.0.0
-----------------------------------------
fib                     2.11         9324.35
parse_int               1.45         9581.44
quicksort               1.15      1866.01
mandel          0.79          451.81
pi_sum          1.00          299.31
rand_mat_stat   1.66            30.93
rand_mat_mul    1.02             1.12

The similarities between the Julia language and the Octave language are
sufficient that they must have overcome many of the difficulties we face
with JIT.  Their code is MIT licenced, so we can use whatever would help us.

Comparing out plotting performance to Matlab is probably also a factor of
100 or so.  (This seems to have got worse just recently; I'll try to track
it down.)

Cheers,
Lachlan



--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Question-tp4678311p4678324.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.