My lazy-sequence implementation was exactly following SICP: while
theoretically pure and good, might not be the best in practice, so I
believe your implementation can be much better.
Major performance boost in stateful implementation compared to
lazy-sequence with delay and force comes from removi
> Hi, the full code is attached (I hope Google Groups will preserve it...).
Thank you for this! There is absolutely a performance gap, and I'll definitely
look over it and see if I can figure out exactly why (I think a well-built
sequence-based model should have comparable speed). I did implemen
Hi, the full code is attached (I hope Google Groups will preserve it...).
Best regards,
Alexey
On 29 May 2015 at 11:51, Alexis King wrote:
> > Maybe this belongs a bit more to your previous thread, but it can also
> relate here:
> > I see you are making generic sequence interface to collection
> Maybe this belongs a bit more to your previous thread, but it can also relate
> here:
> I see you are making generic sequence interface to collections. Clojure from
> 1.7 seems to move more towards "reducebles" rather than "sequable". I have
> played with this idea for Racket a bit and it seem
It looks great! Thanks for putting time and effort into this.
I think Racket in general will benefit from better support of immutable
collections: it has already made the departure from Scheme by making cons-cells
immutable. So, this is next logical step.
Maybe this belongs a bit more to your p
5 matches
Mail list logo
