On 13 September 2013 08:54, Mikera <mike.r.anderson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Either way, if Clojure's semantics prove to be a fundamental issue for > performance, then I think it is better to start work to improve Clojure's > semantics (perhaps targeting 2.0 if we think it's a really big breaking > change). This would be better, IMHO, than forever accepting semantics that > prevent idiomatic code from ever being truly fast. I'd rather see a bit of > breakage and fix my code when upgrading to Clojure 2.0 than be stuck with > poor performance forever. > Out of curiosity, what is the performance hit in these cases? Floats obviously save memory, and I believe they're also between 15% to 40% more efficient for division, at least on Intel CPUs. Is there also a cost to be paid passing doubles to OpenGL? Do you know what that cost is? - James -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
