On Jun 30, 2009, at 19:07, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Konrad
> Hinsen wrote:
>> What is particularly nice about Clojure is that in most situations
>> you don't need to switch to Java for speed. You can optimize your
>> code by adding type hints and switching to low-
Mark Engelberg writes:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Konrad
> Hinsen wrote:
>> What is particularly nice about Clojure is that in most situations
>> you don't need to switch to Java for speed. You can optimize your
>> code by adding type hints and switching to low-level data structures
>>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Konrad
Hinsen wrote:
> What is particularly nice about Clojure is that in most situations
> you don't need to switch to Java for speed. You can optimize your
> code by adding type hints and switching to low-level data structures
> (unboxed ints and floats, arrays,
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 01:55 -0600, Daniel Lyons wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:41 PM, fft1976 wrote:
>
> >
> > Based on the recent survey "What are people using Clojure for?",
> > people are mostly using it for non-CPU-intensive work, like parsing,
> > report generation, GUIs, "glue" code.
>
On Jun 30, 2009, at 3:53 AM, fft1976 wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 12:55 am, Daniel Lyons wrote:
>
>> I don't see why that wouldn't be the case, if you were using Java's
>> native multidimensional arrays. I don't think it would be as much
>> fun,
>
> That's my point. It's often argued that you can ju
On Jun 30, 12:55 am, Daniel Lyons wrote:
> I don't see why that wouldn't be the case, if you were using Java's
> native multidimensional arrays. I don't think it would be as much fun,
That's my point. It's often argued that you can just optimize the
teeny "bottleneck" by adding type declara
On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:41 PM, fft1976 wrote:
>
> Based on the recent survey "What are people using Clojure for?",
> people are mostly using it for non-CPU-intensive work, like parsing,
> report generation, GUIs, "glue" code.
>
> It's been argued by some that Clojure is as fast as Java, because a
On 29.06.2009, at 20:41, fft1976 wrote:
> It's been argued by some that Clojure is as fast as Java, because at
> worst, you can implement your bottlenecks in Java. I have a problem
> with this argument, because the data structures that your Java has to
> work with are still (wasteful) Clojure one
On Jun 30, 2:41 am, fft1976 wrote:
> I would be curious to know if anyone is using Clojure for CPU-
> intensive work where performance really counts.
I'm using clojure for various computational physics tasks:
1. I'm writing a dsl for substructure searching.
2. I'm doing classical molecular dynam
>> Respectfully, I wouldn't class telephony as "non-CPU-intensive". :)
>
> I would have thought those kinds of things are bandwidth-limited.
Typically not.
Some rough numbers: a complete call setup and teardown is usually no
more than 5KB, spread over the course of the call -- the initial
si
On Jun 29, 1:39 pm, Richard Newman wrote:
> > I would be curious to know if anyone is using Clojure for CPU-
> > intensive work where performance really counts.
>
> Respectfully, I wouldn't class telephony as "non-CPU-intensive". :)
I would have thought those kinds of things are bandwidth-limite
> I would be curious to know if anyone is using Clojure for CPU-
> intensive work where performance really counts.
Respectfully, I wouldn't class telephony as "non-CPU-intensive". :)
Speed directly translates to calls-per-second. I've been very happy
with Clojure thus far.
--~--~-~--~
Based on the recent survey "What are people using Clojure for?",
people are mostly using it for non-CPU-intensive work, like parsing,
report generation, GUIs, "glue" code.
It's been argued by some that Clojure is as fast as Java, because at
worst, you can implement your bottlenecks in Java. I hav
13 matches
Mail list logo
