On Feb 20, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Christophe Grand wrote:
> > Laurent PETIT a écrit : >> If I'm damn sure that the value will be set once from within the same >> thread (here we are in the SWT UI Thread), is there a reason to >> prefer >> atoms ? >> (This is a real question, not a disguised affirmation that I'm doing >> the right thing, so please arguments welcome) > > Well I would pick atoms because I would ask myself the question the > other way round "is there any reason not to prefer atoms?" and since > the > only reason I can think of is performance... > > You didn't choose to use an array because of its concurrency model but > because its lack of and that's why, to me, it's a lower-level solution > with which it's not worth to bother about unless you are forced to (by > performance or interop). I understand that in this use-case you don't > need concurrency but it doesn't appear to me as a sufficient reason to > rule out a solution just because it happens to have a concurrency > model > — using an array didn't make the code simpler. > > I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing either, I'm just trying and > explain how I came to the opposite conclusion. > I agree with Christophe here. Why stray from the Clojure constructs? The whole point of having them is that, should you decide later to have some/more concurrency, you are using safe constructs in the first place. When people see them in your code they know what can and can't be happening with them. And atoms are very fast. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
