Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
a start would be to set *warn-on-reflection* *unchecked-math* to
true...I think you're not properly type-hinting your 'aget' calls.
areduce is the fastest way to sum up an array of primitives given that
there are no reflective calls. This takes just over 19 ms on my humble
machine and don't forget that we 're counting the time it takes to
populate the array as well...
(defn- array-sum-ints [n]
(let [^ints a (int-array n)]
(dotimes [n n] (aset a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i)
Jim
On 21/06/13 13:36, Colin Yates wrote:
Hi all,
I am doing some (naive and trivial) performance tests before deciding
whether and how to use Clojure for some performance critical number
cruching and I wanted help understanding the behaviour.
I am defining an array inside a function, setting the contents to be 1
and then summing them up (by areducing) them (I chose 1 instead of a
random number for consistency, obviously the contents will be
different otherwise it would all reduce to (n) :)). If I 'let' the
array then it is factors of 10 faster than if I def the array.
The relevant code
(https://github.com/yatesco/clojure-perf/blob/master/src/inc.clj):
[code]
(ns inc
(:gen-class))
(defn- inc-atom [n]
(def x (atom 0))
(dotimes [n n] (swap! x inc))
@x)
(defn- array-let [n]
(let [a (int-array n)]
(dotimes [n n] (aset-int a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i)
(defn- array-def [n]
(def a (int-array n))
(dotimes [n n] (aset-int a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i
(defn- run-test [subject n]
(time (do (def x (subject n)) (println x
(defn -main [ args]
(let [n 100]
(println inc atom)
(run-test inc-atom n)
(println array with let)
(run-test array-let n)
(println array with def)
(run-test array-def n))
)
[/code]
Interestingly, if I refactored an 'execute-on-array' def which
array-let and array-def delegated to then they had the same
performance which seems to imply it is about scoping, but the array in
both array-let and array-def have exactly the same scope... Setting
the autoboxing warning to true didn't point out anything either.
The output (from my VM, so a bit slow):
[code]
inc atom
100
Elapsed time: 213.214118 msecs
array with let
100
Elapsed time: 75.302602 msecs
array with def
100
Elapsed time: 12868.970203 msecs
[/code]
For comparison, the following java code:
[code]
package perf;
public class Inc {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 100;
int counter = 0;
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; in; i++) counter++;
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println (Naive + (end - start) + ms, counter
is + counter);
counter = 0;
int[] arr = new int[n];
start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; iarr.length; i++) arr[i]=1;
for (int i=0; iarr.length; i++) counter = counter + arr[i];
end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println (Array + (end - start) + ms, counter
is + counter);
}
}
[/code]
produces the (as expected, much faster) results :
[code]
Naive 3 ms, counter is 100
Array 6 ms, counter is 100
[/code]
I am not surprised that the atom/inc takes much longer than 3 ms, but
I don't understand why the array solution is so much more expensive in
Clojure?
On a related point - can anyone provide a faster implementation of
summing up the contents of an array?
A lein project can be found https://github.com/yatesco/clojure-perf,
'lein uberjar; java -jar target/*.jar should demonstrate the output.
--
--
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.
--
--
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
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
Using `def` like that is simply incorrect. `def` should always be at the
top level unlike say Scheme.
I would first remove all internal defs and then rerun your benchmarks.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Colin Yates colin.ya...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am doing some (naive and trivial) performance tests before deciding
whether and how to use Clojure for some performance critical number
cruching and I wanted help understanding the behaviour.
I am defining an array inside a function, setting the contents to be 1 and
then summing them up (by areducing) them (I chose 1 instead of a random
number for consistency, obviously the contents will be different otherwise
it would all reduce to (n) :)). If I 'let' the array then it is factors of
10 faster than if I def the array.
The relevant code (
https://github.com/yatesco/clojure-perf/blob/master/src/inc.clj):
[code]
(ns inc
(:gen-class))
(defn- inc-atom [n]
(def x (atom 0))
(dotimes [n n] (swap! x inc))
@x)
(defn- array-let [n]
(let [a (int-array n)]
(dotimes [n n] (aset-int a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i)
(defn- array-def [n]
(def a (int-array n))
(dotimes [n n] (aset-int a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i
(defn- run-test [subject n]
(time (do (def x (subject n)) (println x
(defn -main [ args]
(let [n 100]
(println inc atom)
(run-test inc-atom n)
(println array with let)
(run-test array-let n)
(println array with def)
(run-test array-def n))
)
[/code]
Interestingly, if I refactored an 'execute-on-array' def which array-let
and array-def delegated to then they had the same performance which seems
to imply it is about scoping, but the array in both array-let and array-def
have exactly the same scope... Setting the autoboxing warning to true
didn't point out anything either.
The output (from my VM, so a bit slow):
[code]
inc atom
100
Elapsed time: 213.214118 msecs
array with let
100
Elapsed time: 75.302602 msecs
array with def
100
Elapsed time: 12868.970203 msecs
[/code]
For comparison, the following java code:
[code]
package perf;
public class Inc {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 100;
int counter = 0;
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; in; i++) counter++;
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println (Naive + (end - start) + ms, counter is
+ counter);
counter = 0;
int[] arr = new int[n];
start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; iarr.length; i++) arr[i]=1;
for (int i=0; iarr.length; i++) counter = counter + arr[i];
end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println (Array + (end - start) + ms, counter is
+ counter);
}
}
[/code]
produces the (as expected, much faster) results :
[code]
Naive 3 ms, counter is 100
Array 6 ms, counter is 100
[/code]
I am not surprised that the atom/inc takes much longer than 3 ms, but I
don't understand why the array solution is so much more expensive in
Clojure?
On a related point - can anyone provide a faster implementation of summing
up the contents of an array?
A lein project can be found https://github.com/yatesco/clojure-perf,
'lein uberjar; java -jar target/*.jar should demonstrate the output.
--
--
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.
--
--
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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
Thanks Jim and David.
David, can you expand on why it is incorrect? That is such a strong word.
Is it correct but simply non-idiomatic?
Also note that if I move the body out of the 'let' version of the array
into another function passing in the array then the performance is the same
as the 'def' version, so even if def is a problem it isn't the only cause.
On 21 June 2013 14:29, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Using `def` like that is simply incorrect. `def` should always be at the
top level unlike say Scheme.
I would first remove all internal defs and then rerun your benchmarks.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Colin Yates colin.ya...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
I am doing some (naive and trivial) performance tests before deciding
whether and how to use Clojure for some performance critical number
cruching and I wanted help understanding the behaviour.
I am defining an array inside a function, setting the contents to be 1
and then summing them up (by areducing) them (I chose 1 instead of a random
number for consistency, obviously the contents will be different otherwise
it would all reduce to (n) :)). If I 'let' the array then it is factors of
10 faster than if I def the array.
The relevant code (
https://github.com/yatesco/clojure-perf/blob/master/src/inc.clj):
[code]
(ns inc
(:gen-class))
(defn- inc-atom [n]
(def x (atom 0))
(dotimes [n n] (swap! x inc))
@x)
(defn- array-let [n]
(let [a (int-array n)]
(dotimes [n n] (aset-int a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i)
(defn- array-def [n]
(def a (int-array n))
(dotimes [n n] (aset-int a n 1))
(areduce a i ret 0
(+ ret (aget a i
(defn- run-test [subject n]
(time (do (def x (subject n)) (println x
(defn -main [ args]
(let [n 100]
(println inc atom)
(run-test inc-atom n)
(println array with let)
(run-test array-let n)
(println array with def)
(run-test array-def n))
)
[/code]
Interestingly, if I refactored an 'execute-on-array' def which array-let
and array-def delegated to then they had the same performance which seems
to imply it is about scoping, but the array in both array-let and array-def
have exactly the same scope... Setting the autoboxing warning to true
didn't point out anything either.
The output (from my VM, so a bit slow):
[code]
inc atom
100
Elapsed time: 213.214118 msecs
array with let
100
Elapsed time: 75.302602 msecs
array with def
100
Elapsed time: 12868.970203 msecs
[/code]
For comparison, the following java code:
[code]
package perf;
public class Inc {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 100;
int counter = 0;
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; in; i++) counter++;
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println (Naive + (end - start) + ms, counter is
+ counter);
counter = 0;
int[] arr = new int[n];
start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i=0; iarr.length; i++) arr[i]=1;
for (int i=0; iarr.length; i++) counter = counter + arr[i];
end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println (Array + (end - start) + ms, counter is
+ counter);
}
}
[/code]
produces the (as expected, much faster) results :
[code]
Naive 3 ms, counter is 100
Array 6 ms, counter is 100
[/code]
I am not surprised that the atom/inc takes much longer than 3 ms, but I
don't understand why the array solution is so much more expensive in
Clojure?
On a related point - can anyone provide a faster implementation of
summing up the contents of an array?
A lein project can be found https://github.com/yatesco/clojure-perf,
'lein uberjar; java -jar target/*.jar should demonstrate the output.
--
--
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.
--
--
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
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
On 21/06/13 14:34, Colin Yates wrote: Is it correct but simply non-idiomatic? no no it's actually very *dangerous*...by doing this you're essentially introducing mutable global state in your program and Clojure is a language that strives hard to minimise mutable and especially global state! I wouldn't say 'wrong' because the compiler lets you do it but it is certainly nasty code! Also note that if I move the body out of the 'let' version of the array into another function passing in the array then the performance is the same as the 'def' version, so even if def is a problem it isn't the only cause. using 'let' or passing the array as parameter is the nice and safe approach. The general performance of clojure when it comes to primitive arrays was discussed very recently in this thread [1] and was concluded that Clojure does indeed match java's performance. The specific use-case actually was summing up primitive arrays. I encourage you read it...In a nutshell, If you're using leiningen, add this entry to your project.clj and rerun your benchmarks. :jvm-opts ^replace [] Jim [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/LTtxhPxH_ws https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/clojure/LTtxhPxH_ws -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
2013/6/21 Colin Yates colin.ya...@gmail.com Is it correct but simply non-idiomatic? It's not how defs are supposed to be used. It's like using fields for everything in Java even though you could use local variables for a lot of things, just because you can. def produces a shared (well, namespace-local) var. You probably want a function-local one. On top of that, since the thread is about performance, vars have features that locals don't and no feature comes without performance overhead. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
2013/6/21 Jim - FooBar(); jimpil1...@gmail.com If you're using leiningen, add this entry to your project.clj and rerun your benchmarks. :jvm-opts ^replace [] Original post suggests the code is executed by building an uberjar running java -jar target/… so Leiningen default JVM options are not relevant. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
Did you read the entire thread? both Jason and Leon (who originally posted) admit that this was the problem...Stuart even opened this issue: https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/pull/1230 the very last post reads: I should follow up on this and clarify that core.matrix's esum is in fact as fast as Java -- I apologize for the false statement (I was unaware that new versions of leiningen disable advanced JIT optimizations by default, which lead to the numbers I reported). Jim On 21/06/13 14:54, Michael Klishin wrote: 2013/6/21 Jim - FooBar(); jimpil1...@gmail.com mailto:jimpil1...@gmail.com If you're using leiningen, add this entry to your project.clj and rerun your benchmarks. :jvm-opts ^replace [] Original post suggests the code is executed by building an uberjar running java -jar target/… so Leiningen default JVM options are not relevant. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
:jvm-opts and that ticket for Leiningen only affect the options passed to the JVM if you let Leiningen invoke the JVM for you, e.g. via lein run ... Colin showed pretty clearly in his email that he was using lein uberjar followed by running the JVM explicitly with his own command line, so Leiningen has no way to affect the JVM command line options in that case. Andy On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Jim - FooBar(); jimpil1...@gmail.comwrote: Did you read the entire thread? both Jason and Leon (who originally posted) admit that this was the problem...Stuart even opened this issue: https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/pull/1230 the very last post reads: I should follow up on this and clarify that core.matrix's esum is in fact as fast as Java -- I apologize for the false statement (I was unaware that new versions of leiningen disable advanced JIT optimizations by default, which lead to the numbers I reported). Jim On 21/06/13 14:54, Michael Klishin wrote: 2013/6/21 Jim - FooBar(); jimpil1...@gmail.com If you're using leiningen, add this entry to your project.clj and rerun your benchmarks. :jvm-opts ^replace [] Original post suggests the code is executed by building an uberjar running java -jar target/… so Leiningen default JVM options are not relevant. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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. -- -- 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. -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
2013/6/21 Jim - FooBar(); jimpil1...@gmail.com Did you read the entire thread? both Jason and Leon (who originally posted) admit that this was the problem...Stuart even opened this issue: https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/pull/1230 Leiningen's default only apply if you, hm, run Leiningen. If you run java -jar …, you don't run Leiningen and the JVM flags used are exactly what you provide. -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
On 21/06/13 15:06, Andy Fingerhut wrote: Colin showed pretty clearly in his email that he was using lein uberjar followed by running the JVM explicitly with his own command line, so Leiningen has no way to affect the JVM command line options in that case. oops! I thought Michael meant the guys from Prismatic not the OP on this thread. Yes, this doesn't apply to Colin... my bad...I'm really sorry... Jim -- -- 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.
Re: (clojure 1.5.1) Weird performance results when using let versus def for variable
Ah OK, I didn't realise. I thought the vars would be locally scoped, i.e. semantically equivalent to 'let'ed symbols. Thanks everyone for contributing. On Friday, 21 June 2013 14:49:52 UTC+1, Jim foo.bar wrote: On 21/06/13 14:34, Colin Yates wrote: Is it correct but simply non-idiomatic? no no it's actually very *dangerous*...by doing this you're essentially introducing mutable global state in your program and Clojure is a language that strives hard to minimise mutable and especially global state! I wouldn't say 'wrong' because the compiler lets you do it but it is certainly nasty code! Also note that if I move the body out of the 'let' version of the array into another function passing in the array then the performance is the same as the 'def' version, so even if def is a problem it isn't the only cause. using 'let' or passing the array as parameter is the nice and safe approach. The general performance of clojure when it comes to primitive arrays was discussed very recently in this thread [1] and was concluded that Clojure does indeed match java's performance. The specific use-case actually was summing up primitive arrays. I encourage you read it...In a nutshell, If you're using leiningen, add this entry to your project.clj and rerun your benchmarks. :jvm-opts ^replace [] Jim [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/LTtxhPxH_ws -- -- 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.
