David: good call, but on string concatenation specifically an issue was already opened: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/11030
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 12:00:00 PM UTC-7, David Anthoff wrote: > > I would suggest that this topic is moved over to a github issue by those > that are interested/participating. > > > > I have observed a highly useful pattern of communication over the last > year on this list: someone brings up a topic that relates to a design > question/improvement of julia, there is a bit of discussion on the mailing > list, but once the discussion becomes extensive, someone will open up a > github issue, post the link to the issue on this mailinglist, and then the > discussion continues on github. This is effective because it keeps long > discussion about specific julia design areas that are of no interest to the > larger julia-users crowd off this list here (which specifically is NOT > about the development/design of julia, but about its use). At the same time > those people that are interested in the topic can hammer out a great design > on github. > > > > I feel this topic checks all the boxes: it is obviously super important > and I’m glad there are people looking into how string handling can be > improved in julia, but for the vast majority of readers of this list this > is really off-topic, and it has taken up a very large share of traffic over > the last week or so. So, a github issue seems ideal. > > > > Thanks, > > David > > > > *From:* julia...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto: > julia...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Scott Jones > *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2015 5:30 AM > *To:* julia...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>; Tamas Papp > *Subject:* Re: [julia-users] Performance variability - can we expect > Julia to be the fastest (best) language? > > > > > > On May 4, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Tamas Papp <tkp...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 04 2015, Scott Jones <scott.pa...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > On May 4, 2015, at 3:21 AM, Tamas Papp <tkp...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > I think you misunderstand: IOBuffer is suggested not for mutable string > operations in general, but only for efficient concatenation of many > strings. > > Best, > > Tamas > > > I don’t think that I misunderstood - it’s that using IOBuffer is the only > solution that has been given here… and it doesn’t handle what I need to do > efficiently... > If you have a better solution, please let me know… > > > 1. Can you share the benchmarks (and simplified, self-contained code) > for your problem using IOBuffer? I have always found it very fast, but > maybe what you are working on is different. > > > > It is very fast, for building up things in a buffer… the problem isn’t the > speed of IOBuffer, it’s that you can’t do string operations on it (AFAIK), > without going back and forth converting it to a immutable string… > > The other issue is not computer efficiency, but programmer efficiency… The > syntax is clumsy, compared to doing something like: `MyBuff ..= “.ext”` > > I’m a firm believer that most of the time, programmer efficiency is more > important than computer efficiency… > > (For the most part, I think Julia is incredibly good in that aspect, with > the powerful metaprogramming and the way with parameterization it can > generate a lot of special case code > > for me, saving me a lot of time, while producing code that is as fast as > my hand specialized and optimized C code) > > > > 2. Do you have a specific algorithm in mind that would be more > efficient? > > > > No, just many years of experience trying to speed up the compiler / > interpreter of a language used heavily for string / database processing… > > I never wrote application code, just had customer requests for certain > types of operations to be made faster… > > > > Best, > > Tamas > > > > Thanks for all the responses… It helps a Julia beginner like me a lot! > > Scott > > > > >
