Sounds great. If you have time, I'd certainly like to hear your thoughts on the issues of equality semantics and transients, maybe I can ponder and make some suggestions based on my target use-case.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 9:32:32 AM UTC-7, Zach Tellman wrote: > > To be clear, my intention was always to wrap the implementations in the > appropriate Clojure interfaces, and I don't believe that will cause much, > if any, of a performance hit (inlining is magic). However, there are some > real questions regarding how to expose non-standard equality semantics, and > whether transients should be represented using the immutable or mutable > collection variants. > > For what it's worth, I have about 1/3 of an implementation of > Clojure-compatible versions of these data structures, I just wanted to mull > on the above questions a bit before going further. I'm happy to discuss > them here in more depth if you have any questions or opinions. > > Zach > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:53 AM Dave Dixon <dave.d...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Stared at this a bit yesterday. Seems like if you want to leverage spec >> while using bifurcan, then the bifurcan types need to have the Clojure >> wrapper. The alternative appears to be re-implementing at least a large >> subset of collection-related spec code, which is a lot to bite off. Also >> tried updating some existing code to use bifurcan. Similar to spec, there >> are going to be cases which are less perf sensitive, where it would be nice >> to use code that is polymorphic for collections, and drop down to the fast >> interface in perf-sensitive parts. >> >> >> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 1:52:39 PM UTC-7, Dave Dixon wrote: >>> >>> What is the issue with wrapping in Clojure interfaces? Added overhead of >>> function calls? >>> >>> I'm finding myself in the process of doing some of this, at least for >>> constructors. Also thinking of generating predicates/generators for use >>> with spec. >>> >>> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 9:51:46 AM UTC-7, Zach Tellman wrote: >>> >>>> This is a slightly irregular announcement, because it's not for a >>>> Clojure library. Rather, it's for a library written purely in Java: >>>> https://github.com/lacuna/bifurcan. >>>> >>>> This is a collection of mutable and immutable data structures, designed >>>> to address some of my personal frustrations with what's available in the >>>> Clojure and Java ecosystems. Notably, they have pluggable equality >>>> semantics, so while they *can* use Clojure's expensive hash and equality >>>> checks, they don't *have* to. They also provide high-performance mutable >>>> variants of the data structure which share an API with their immutable >>>> cousins. >>>> >>>> I'm posting it here to ask for people's thoughts on how, if at all, >>>> this should be exposed as a Clojure library. It would be simple to simply >>>> wrap them in the Clojure interfaces and make them behave identically to >>>> Clojure's own data structures, but that kind of obviates the point. >>>> However, creating an entirely new set of accessors means that we can't >>>> leverage Clojure's standard library. >>>> >>>> It's possible that I'm alone in my frustrations, and no Clojure wrapper >>>> is necessary. But if this does solve a problem you have, I'd like to hear >>>> more about what it is, and how you think Bifurcan might help. Please feel >>>> free to reply here, or to grab me at Clojure/West and talk about it there. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> Zach >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/1m_I7IrDGb0/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- 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 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
