On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I assume that most Clojure users really like its dynamic nature. If > this is true, then for most of us, the common case is to NOT annotate > our code with types. Certainly I like the idea of making it as easy > as possible to write fast code in Clojure. The problem is that it distinctly *not* easy to write fast numeric code in Clojure. It requires expert Clojure knowledge. On the other hand, the mental burden for someone who wants BigInts in the new system is very low - you'll get a trivial to track exception. And the new system doesn't remove any of the lovely dynamic stuff. There's absolutely no compromise there. In fact in the new system you can write your code initially sans ^:static and fn type hints entirely, you work to get your algorithm right, play around at the REPL as usual, then you add ^:static, type hint only the arglist and return value ... BOOM, you get raw JVM speed. But of course I'm biased as you are :) In two years I've never once been interested in BigInts. I have however have mangled and munged my code since 2008 trying to get basic numeric algorithms to perform even remotely in the vicinity to their Java counterparts to no avail. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
