Clojure and large data sets
Hi All, As a newbie I try to read up on Clojure whenever I can. One of the common things that I read is that Clojure is really good for operating on large data sets, but I haven't seen anyone articulate why that is aside from alluding to lazy evaluation. So I assume lazy evaluation is the primary reason, but what are others? A few searches didn't turn up any obvious results. If there are posts/articles that discuss this, I'd love to read them. My primary reason for asking is that a project I'll be moving to in the future will be working with large scale data sets. At the moment, Clojure is something that I'm drawn to out of intellectual curiosity, as I haven't been able to put to use in my day to day work (Java C+ +). Given this project is more or less brand new, I'd like to think now is as good a time as any to branch out to a new language if it fits. So could anyone help me understand more about why Clojure works well on large data sets? Thanks! --- Chris -- 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
Re: Is Clojure Simple?
Interesting discussion of this talk, including comments from Rich (or at least someone claiming to be Rich): http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/lirke/simple_made_easy_by_rich_hickey_video/ On Oct 25, 7:00 am, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/25 Michael Jaaka michael.ja...@googlemail.com: Something is simple as long as your mental model is simple to track. Something which doesn't cause you headache. Disagree. The whole point of Rich's talk is to have people not conflate simple and easy, or it seems to me that this is what you're doing here. simple is objective. You start talking about your mental model is simple to track = you probably meant easy to track. And anyway, your, mental model seems more like subjective material than objective material. If you can't build mental model in your head, then its definitely not simple. Every time you think I have mental model which works like this, but before this I must remember about this and that, or assume that there is something to add which behave like this, it is proof that it is doesn't solve problems in a simplest way. All design patterns are proof of that used tools are not simple and must be made simple by applying as simple as possible additional mental model. For example OO programming have a lot of design patterns. When design pattern becomes mental model which solve specific problem and is not addition to the goal but language feature then you can be sure that language is simple to such solve domain problems. Now looking at Clojure which claims to be general purpose language, the Clojure is simple since it: - allows you to turn design patterns into language features (as whole lisp) - is near to mathematical logic (lambda, definition of functions - functions without side effect with which you can reason about) - is practical since it is also about data manipulation (not a first time I have turned XML into s-expressions - interpretation, function definition, control flow you have out of box) There are some also drawbacks about Clojure: - there is no simple made currying so its not as near as for example Haskell to lambda calculus - you can't reason about data types until runtime and empirically tests - it is bound to JVM infrastructure (ClojureScript and CLR version want to change that) There is a lot other fields in which Clojure doesn't fit, so its not simple in: - real time systems (JVM is not real time cause of GC) - hardware programming on low level (assemblers or C are much more suitable) There is a lot other things to say about being simple but for now it should answer you question. -- 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 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
Clojure/conj for beginners?
Hi Recently I've taken interest to learning Clojure. I've watched presentations, read the Joy of Clojure, done some examples on 4clojure, but have yet to do any real programming. I work in enterprise-land and for the most part its all Java without much room to try newer things. With that being said, I do have some company money dedicated to professional development. Unfortunately its not enough for the training option at Clojure/conj, but would be enough for travel and conference attendance. I was wondering if the conference would be useful for someone in my position, a Clojure beginner. Would the presentations be over my head, or worthwhile? Thanks! --- Chris -- 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
Re: Stanford AI Class
I was wondering about the prerequisites as well and found some further information here: http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs229/materials.html In particular, the first 2 entries under Section Notes. On Aug 16, 1:46 pm, Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com wrote: Nice. I'm glad these other classes are getting the full treatment. It's really a shame they don't do a clearer job of defining the prerequisites. For example, they should post some sort of pre-test with specific examples of the kind of math that is needed to understand the class. I find it difficult to know whether to recommend the classes to the high school students I know. -- 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
