Excellent write up, thanks for doing that.
--
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 unsub
> unreachable. The "normal" GC would then have a lot less to do, helping
> achieve shorter pauses.
i have long wondered a similar wonder. :-) (i also naively day-dream
one could get the C# "IDisposing" style for free with something like
that.) the BitC folks have talked about all sorts of things a
Jacob Goodson wrote:
> I was wondering, would a GC like this one(or Azul's) make a
> significant impact so that I, or others, could make games in a more
> pure fashion? I WANT MY EFFIN PURITY!
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about either game development or
advanced garbage collection technolog
e, basically, clojure is just a scripting
> language that wraps java. It is no problem if this is the case, my
> question has jack crap to do about getting good performance writing
> asteroids. My question is: Will clojure(the immutable composable side)
>
> benefit from shenandoah(b
(related: asteroids in cal, by way of haskell.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ns999/cal.html)
--
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 - pleas
getting good performance writing
> asteroids. My question is: Will clojure(the immutable composable side)
>
> benefit from shenandoah(blasted font) at all? Can someone who knows a
> good bit about clojure tell me if a more powerful garbage collector would
> allow us clojurians t
I use mutation generously inside of functions. I do not consider that
impure at all, pragmatic yes, impure no. Has anyone used Azul's jvm and
gotten a big bump in performance?
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:28:44 PM UTC-4, raould wrote:
>
> > pure way or the mutate objects in place way? I can
> pure way or the mutate objects in place way? I can get great performance
> with clojure, no doubt about it, by violating the shat out of functional
> programming. I can not get great performance with the beautiful, pure,
> composable, clojure that I desire!
(personally i think this is a great
basically, clojure is just a scripting
language that wraps java. It is no problem if this is the case, my
question has jack crap to do about getting good performance writing
asteroids. My question is: Will clojure(the immutable composable side)
benefit from shenandoah(blasted font) at
> bazillion pure functions. I was wondering, would a GC like this one(or
> Azul's) make a significant impact so that I, or others, could make games in
> a more pure fashion? I WANT MY EFFIN PURITY!
i'd rather have linear types or something like that, than some gc
solution. :-) i mean, if i'm dre
s of my code in
isolation to get an idea of how its running.
- James
On 12 March 2014 21:53, Jacob Goodson wrote:
> How many people have heard of this GC?
> http://www.jclarity.com/2014/02/19/shenandoah-a-new-low-pause-garbage-collection-algorithm-for-the-java-hotspot-jvm/
>
> I want to
How many people have heard of this GC?
http://www.jclarity.com/2014/02/19/shenandoah-a-new-low-pause-garbage-collection-algorithm-for-the-java-hotspot-jvm/
I want to know if this would benefit clojure. I wrote a small asteroids
game in clojure and the performance was not good. I stuck to
12 matches
Mail list logo
