> Julia is regularly 1.2x C and sometimes faster than c when leveraging builtin libraries.
It is very difficult to say a language is faster than another, and only slightly easier to say an implementation is faster.
http://tech.marksblogg.com/benchmarks.html
describes a number of benchmarks for an interesting data problem. kdb+ is the
third fastest performer and the fastest CPU performer. kdb+ is 1000x faster than another database written in C (kdb+ is written in k); but only about 100x faster than other C-based databases. The next closest looks like Yandex Clickhouse which is written in C++ and still less than half the speed of kdb+.
How much work is spent getting C++ to approach half the speed of an interpreted language?
> How can you be "a lot faster" than Julia?
That is an incredibly loaded question, but a big part of "how" is because of the notation: Because it's written in a language that is very dense, and puts parts of the solution near eachother, it is very easy to be correct, and to find repetitive parts of the program that can be coalesced and merged.
> What's mmu?
http://code.kx.com/q/ref/matrixes/#mmu
> Im sorry, but when i see apl, I just see a lot of symbols I can't bother to look up to understand.
It never ceases to amaze me when a programmer thinks that just because they can't do something, that somehow that follows that nobody else should either.
I mean, seriously!
> Code reviews would be a nightmare.
Why would you do code reviews in a language you don't understand?
The dense and carefully chosen symbols and meanings in an APLish language is its value. Not that it's fast (although it is), but specifically that it's easy to understand. Heck, the article we're commenting about mentions several algorithms that are so much easier to understand in an array language than anything else.