HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
lindahua
Devectorize.jl
Julia2013–2016
lindahua / Devectorize.jl

Devectorize.jl

A Julia framework for delayed expression evaluation

8Distinct people
10Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
117GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A Julia framework for delayed expression evaluation

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 9:28:18 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year10 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-02-12 17:35:22 UTC to 2016-03-12 22:53:17 UTC.

012342013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20132014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
> Julia's benchmarks just turned me off. They are ignoring the "reasonable idioms" of each language, specifically focusing only on RECURSIVE and ITERATIVE algos. I read the benchmarks as an invitation to experiment (which I am) - not as a call to language war; if it doesn't float your boat, then that's cool (but you might want to check it out again in a year or two). Your concerns are specifically addressed on the front page in the benchmark discussion (http://julialang.org): "These benchmarks, while not comprehensive, do test compiler performance on a range of common code patterns, such as function calls, string parsing, sorting, numerical loops, random number generation, and array operations. It is important to note that these benchmark implementations are not written for absolute maximal performance (the fastest code to compute fib(20)
Read the rest
is the constant literal 6765). Rather, all of the benchmarks are written to test the performance of specific algorithms, expressed in a reasonable idiom in each language. ... The point of these benchmarks is to compare the performance of specific algorithms across language implementations, not to compare the fastest means of computing a result, which in most high-level languages relies on calling C code." We all know C compilers make fast machine code, so it seems kind of silly to tediously write apple-oranges benchmarks in ways which will usually just end up benchmarking language X FFI anyway. Excepting BLAS stuff (as noted) pure Julia is within 2x of C, and that is really the take-home message of the benchmarks. Here's why these small, hot-point benchmarks matter: the reasonable idiom in Julia is to rewrite slow algorithms in the same language. See this recent contribution for a great example of what is possible: https://github.com/lindahua/Devectorize.jl This combination of meta-programming expressiveness with speed in one language is really quite profound. Among other things, I think it will go a long way towards reducing the impedance-mismatch between "C core developers" and "end-user" communities in other technical computing environments (see NumPy,R). Julia has a beautiful, small, and stunningly accessible language implementation in C (isolated C++ for LLVM stuff); and it is certainly pragmatic by using BLAS,FFTW, etc. where appropriate --- but the numerical core is defined in Julia itself, and - IMHO - that is a very fundamental shift for building an open-source computing environment and community. (LuaJIT is a masterpiece and it would be cool to see it in the benchmarks, but there are many reasons why I personally have no interest in numerical work using Lua)
In Julia, I love you (2012)

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.