2014-08-23 7:06 GMT+02:00 Mars0i <marsh...@logical.net>: > (1) Others may disagree, but ... although I love Lisps, think that purely > functional programming is cool, and have come to see that there are > situations in which FP is *great*, I am not someone who thinks that FP is > always clearer (easier to understand) or as clear as imperative > programming. For some jobs, one can be be made clearer than the other. > Maybe, in addition to providing examples in which FP is clearer, you would > want to provide an example in which it's less clear. Since so many people > go around promoting the latest, greatest thing that will solve all of your > programming problems, it might build trust to show that you understand that > there are tradeoffs. >
Can you share which things you find less clear? > > (2) The REPL. Show how easy it is to stop your program and inspect data > structures, or to try out a new function with different arguments, or to > chain some functions together in an experimental way. > I love that. (Also in Scala.) > (3) pmap. I had a program that was mapping a function over a sequence of > data structures to produce the next sequence of data structures. Then I > added "p" to two instances of "map", and got a 2-4X speedup. It would have > been more if I'd had more cores. Then I rearranged the code a little bit > so that I only needed one map or pmap call, and got a little more speed. > Occasionally, during debugging, I replace pmap with map so that I can see > the sequence. Easy peasy. Multiprocessing in Clojure isn't always that > easy, but I'd guess that it's it's never that easy in other popular > languages. > I have to delve into that. Interesting. > (5) Which reminds me: Going back to point (1) about building trust, maybe > it's worth mentioning that you will need side effects some time, and > Clojure is going to make you mix it with laziness simply because so many of > the useful functions generate lazy sequences. This can be a pain, and > *will* generate annoying bugs, at least at first. But as with any > programming style, you have to develop good practices in order to avoid > gotchas. > Sadly I fell more as once in the error of not taking into account that certain things are lazy. :'-( Thanks. New things to think about. :-D -- Cecil Westerhof -- 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/d/optout.
