On my repl into is consistently faster.
What versions of clojure, java and the OS are you running?
--
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 moder
I restart the repl and run the two versions, still `into` is slower:
>
>
> user=> (time (do (into #{} (range 1e6)) nil))
> "Elapsed time: 4913.818 msecs"
> nil
> user=> (time (do (naive-into #{} (range 1e6)) nil))
> "Elapsed time: 5599.32 msecs"
> nil
> user=>
> user=> (time (do (naive-into #{} (
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 13:57 -0700, Vladimir Tsichevski wrote:
> In one of my purely Java project I have to create hundreds of java classes
> with repeatable structure, so the task is an excellent candidate for
> automation. I hoped I will be able to create these classes with the latest
> closure
On my machine the version with into fluctuates around 200ms, whereas the
version with naive-into fluctuates around 300ms.
Have you tried running the examples multiple times to give the jit time to
warm up?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" grou
Hi, all.
I am following an example demonstrating that `transient` can help optimize
mass updates to data structures:
First, a function is defined, which doesn't use transient collection:
(defn naive-into
> [coll source]
> (reduce conj coll source))
This is supposed to run slower than the
That's a good point Alan, and I should have mentioned into.
But this came up for me in a situation relevant to Ben's' point.
I was adding or removing a computed sequence of elements of a set based on
some other
input and was using either conj or disj depending on that input, with apply.
It worked
There might be a reason to write (apply f coll seqable) in a situation
in which f might be conj, though.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Alan Malloy wrote:
> There is never a reason to write (apply conj ...). Instead, use `into`,
> which does the same thing but faster and with fewer characters.
>
There is never a reason to write (apply conj ...). Instead, use `into`,
which does the same thing but faster and with fewer characters.
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:27:24 PM UTC-7, CGAT wrote:
>
> It would be nice if clojure.core/conj had a unary implementation
>
>([coll] coll)
>
> Th
It would be nice if clojure.core/conj had a unary implementation
([coll] coll)
The motivating use case is when one is conjoining sequences of
items to a collection all at once:
(apply conj coll seqable)
such as (apply conj #{1 2 3} [2 4 6 8 10]).
Currently (1.4.0), this will rais
Hi closure developers.
In one of my purely Java project I have to create hundreds of java classes
with repeatable structure, so the task is an excellent candidate for
automation. I hoped I will be able to create these classes with the latest
closure, using the 'deftype' construct.
I learned cu
Thanks! Works like a charm.
On Friday, 2 November 2012 19:58:19 UTC-4, AtKaaZ wrote:
>
> looks like you can use AFn() in your example
> ie.
> static IFn assoc = new AFn(){
> @Override
> public Object invoke(Object m, Object k, Object v) {
> return RT.assoc(m, k, v);
> }
> };
As I understand it, lein-noir was a plugin needed for Leiningen 1.x. But
since Leiningen 2 you can create new projects using remote templates
without having to install anything.
See lein help new:
If two arguments are passed, the first should be the name of a template,
> and the second is used
12 matches
Mail list logo
