Re: Octave's and Matlab's limitations

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 22 November 2012 09:15, Salva Ardid <address@hidden> wrote:
> El Dijous, 22 de novembre de 2012, a les 08:56:35, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso va
> escriure:
>
>> On 22 November 2012 08:51, Francesco Potortì <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > I see.  But again, is there another language (preferably an interpreted
>> > one) that allows things like
>> >
>> >   A([1:2:97 98 99],[1:end-1]) = (B > C);
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> >   A(A > 0) += 128;
>> >
>> > ?
>>
>> Julia:
>>
>>     http://julialang.org/
>>
>> We'll have to wait some time for it to pick up while we all rewrite
>> all of our numerical routines for it, though.

> Do you know if Julia is faster than Octave both using JIT?

Octave's JIT compiler still doesn't compile a lot of things. For the
basic loops that Octave's JIT compiler catches, it seems to be
comparable to Julia. They're both using LLVM.

A complication is that automatically parallelising Octave loops seems
like it's going to be a lot more difficult, since Octave's source is
supremely non-thread safe. Julia already seems to be built with
parallelism in mind. This is usually where the greater speedups can be
seen nowadays.

- Jordi G. H.


- Jordi G. H.