On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Alex Osborne <a...@meshy.org> wrote: > Damon Snyder <drsny...@gmail.com> writes: > >> One of the decisions I wasn't sure about was whether to use a protocol >> or a struct map for the (socket, reader, writer) tuple. I started >> using a struct-map and then switched over to defprotocol/defrecord. >> See >> https://github.com/drsnyder/beanstalk/blob/82f301f1f825bb05aa14d85a220ec57c1dea61b2/src/beanstalk/core.clj#L117 >> for the definition. > > Struct maps were in the language for a long time before defrecord was > added. Records are supposed to replace them for most purposes. So if > in doubt between the two use a defrecord.
Isn't one advantage of structmaps over records that you don't need to AOT your structmaps? And can thus change them on the fly during REPL-driven programming, debugging, and experimentation instead of having to do a discrete edit, build, test cycle? I'd suggest at least using structmaps until you've debugged the algorithms and finalized the design of the structmap itself (its fields and their semantics) and then perhaps convert them to records and, perhaps, add nice behaviors like seqability or whatever layered onto the already-tested functionality. Jumping straight to defrecord might, in some cases, be premature optimization, too. -- 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
