909 karma · joined October 5, 2011
https://github.com/synapticarbors/ndarray_comparison/blob/ma...
Most surprising among them was how fast pythran was with little more effort than is required of numba (still required an aot compilation step with a setup.py, but minimal changes in the code). All of the usual caveats should be applied to a simple benchmark like this.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/...
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picki...
And here is a follow-up from the original authors (standard academic back-and-forth):
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/wp-content/uploads/sites/760/...
In Numba 0.21.0, on-disk caching of jit'd code was also introduced, which was one of the major sticking points for us to put Numba into production in areas where we needed faster start-up times. Before we could really only use Cython because we required the start-up times available only from AOT compilation.
That all said, Numba has been a bit buggy for me at times, although these get squashed pretty quickly. I've only found a single bug in Cython in all of the years I've been using it, and it's amazing how quickly Robert Bradshaw or Stefan Behnel respond and fix things considering Cython is not their full time job.
I use cython extensively in my work and it's super productive for me as well, but I could see maybe toying with Rust more in the future for some really specialized things.
and Vincent: https://github.com/wrobstory/vincent
Also the code examples given on AstroML to work well for figuring out how to make publication quality figures in Matplotlib: http://www.astroml.org/book_figures/
Not that Julia ever misrepresented/misused a language in a benchmark on its front page, say like calling pure python code numpy. . . . (http://web.archive.org/web/20120215054907/http://julialang.o...)
Also, thanks for sharing the Julia distance links. The explanation of how the speed-up is achieved is really useful:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-dev/hd1beLPrsVk/6n88H_...