Julia vs. D?

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 11:20:33 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 09:11:30 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> I recently came across this article 
>> http://www.wired.com/2014/02/julia/. On the Julia homepage 
>> there are some benchmarks times relative to C. I know that 
>> bearophile has mentioned Julia several times on this forum. 
>> Has anyone compared D's vs Julia's performance as well as 
>> design features?
>
> I can only comment on design features.
>
> You can think of Julia as a dynamic language similar to Python, 
> with optional typing and for such a young language, a quite 
> good JIT compiler backed by the LLVM backend.
>
> It is a multi-paradigm language, with an OO approach based on 
> multi-methods and direct support for scientific programming.
>
> The target audience are the scientifc community that makes use 
> of R, Python with NumPy and so on, which are currently 
> disappointed with the performance of said systems. Their goal 
> is to keep the programming flexibility of R and Python, while 
> improving the performance without having to be forced to write 
> C code.
>
> --
> Paulo

Maybe it's time to think about a D interface to Julia. If Julia 
catches on within the scientific community, it would be good to 
have a foot in the door. Science quickly creates large code 
bases, unfortunately, so far it's mostly Python and Matlab which 
makes it hard to use the algorithms in real world applications.