News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Giving up on Julia (2016). Parent comment

Re:Giving up on Julia (2016) by phonebucket on Sunday August 18, 2019 @03:00PM (#20732131)
> like piping CLI commands together, in Julia's case you're looking at pathetic 3 execs per second.

If you want to build CLIs without the JIT overhead, you can compile your Julia code: https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Giving up on Julia (2016) by norcalli on Sunday August 18, 2019 @09:17PM (#20734133)
It doesn't work very well. I got SEGFAULTs every time I tried; filed a bug report; no resolution. So, while it does exist, it's not a high priority for the Julia team, so I wouldn't rely on it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Giving up on Julia (2016) by xiaodai on Monday August 19, 2019 @09:27AM (#20737516)
It's getting better. See how I managed to compile a bunch of data science packages https://discourse.julialang.org/t/201908-compiling-a-data-sc...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Giving up on Julia (2016) by jruth on Monday August 19, 2019 @12:07AM (#20734814)
I had the exact same experience when I tried over a year ago. The package was eventually closed IIRC, but a recent news letter claimed to have fixed it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Giving up on Julia (2016) by peatmoss on Sunday August 18, 2019 @05:22PM (#20732971)
How big are the resulting binaries these days? It’s been some time since I tried this, but I decided that the size of the compiled code didn’t fit my use case (a serverless function IIRC)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Giving up on Julia (2016) by myrryr on Sunday August 18, 2019 @06:13PM (#20733282)
Horrendous is the answer :)

It is still crazy big, because it still has to include the LLVM compiler in it.

[ Parent | on HN ]