On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Isaac Hodes wrote: > It's just a shame, it seems to me, that there is such a nice way to > represent the procedure in Python or even C, yet Clojure (or any Lisp > really) struggles to idiomatically answer this question of > convolution.
No, it's pretty easy to do convolution idiomatically, as demonstrated by some of the replies you got. What makes it seem difficult is that the literature is all written with imperative languages in mind. What Clojure does "struggle" with is performance, in that the obvious way of writing something often results in poor performance, especially for heavy numeric code. This applies to most (all?) dynamic languages, though; you'd be better off with C if high-performance numerics are your top priority. -- 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
