More efficient than vectors of non-primitives, one imagines. Or, more efficient than primitive vectors before 1.3 (I'm not sure if primitive vectors exist in 1.2).
On May 29, 2:26 pm, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:39 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Vectors of primitives are more efficient, > > [1] > > > but there's work to be done for them to approach Java > > arrays in perf. > > [2] > > Aren't your statements [1] and [2] contradictory? Did you mean "more > idiomatic" perhaps in [1], or "more functional"? > > -- > Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! > Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true > hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more > civilized age. -- 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
