Optimization should definitely be on this list. The JuMP package is just
phenomenal, in my mind a much better overall experience for many problems than
any existing alternative.
From: julia-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:julia-users@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Andrei Zh
Sent: Wednesday, S
I agree with all that - there isn't a web framework for Julia that is at
the level of something Django or RoR. It seems totally reasonable to use
those mature tools for the frontend of your webapp, which could in term
communicate with a Julia backend.
I just meant that some of the lower levels of
On fim 24.sep 2015 13:25, Jonathan Malmaud wrote:
I agree with all that - there isn't a web framework for Julia that is at
the level of something Django or RoR. It seems totally reasonable to use
those mature tools for the frontend of your webapp, which could in term
communicate with a Julia b
>From browsing issues, it looks like the HttpServer.jl performance issue you
referenced below should be now fixed by
https://github.com/JuliaWeb/HttpServer.jl/pull/59.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:47 AM Páll Haraldsson
wrote:
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:07:56 PM UTC, Andrei Zh wrote:
>>
> From browsing issues, it looks like the HttpServer.jl performance issue
> you referenced below should be now fixed by
> https://github.com/JuliaWeb/HttpServer.jl/pull/59.
Yes, this issue has been fixed.
It seems Julia can have low latency
Yes, on my later tests latency was pretty goo