On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Jesse Jaanila <jessejaan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I was experimenting with the new 0.5 features and they are great! But to my > surprise, > the generator syntax doesn't work as I'm expecting. Let's say I want to > calculate > some summation. With the old syntax I could do > > @time sum([2*t for t in 1:2:100]) > 0.015104 seconds (13.80 k allocations: 660.366 KB) > > that allocates the array within the summation. Now I thought this would a > prime example > where the memory overhead could be decreased by using the new notation i.e. > > @time sum(2*t for t in 1:2:100) > 0.019215 seconds (18.98 k allocations: 785.777 KB) > > ,but generator syntax performs slightly worse. Also if we want find the > maximum we would do > > julia> @time maximum([2*t for t in 1:2:100]) > 0.015182 seconds (12.90 k allocations: 606.166 KB) > 198 > > julia> @time maximum(2*t for t in 1:2:100) > 0.019935 seconds (18.74 k allocations: 772.180 KB) > 198 > > Have I understood the new generator syntax incorrectly or should the new > syntax perform > better in these code snippet examples?
Put it in a function since each syntactically different generator/anonymous functions has their own type and you are benchmarking the compiler only. It doesn't make sense for adding 50 numbers to take 15 ms. > > > > > >
