<rebor...@gmail.com> writes: > I'm doing a little research for a talk and asking clojurists around. The > thesis I'm supporting is that transducers should completely replace > "normal" (non-reducing based) sequential processing. People have different > reactions to this, usually going from "what's wrong with threading macros" > to "I only use them for performances" to "they are less readable". I think > it's mostly habit. > > Personally, I can't find any good reason not to ditch Clojure <1.7 > sequential processing and use transducers exclusively. It took me a couple > of years to kill my habit but hey, they came late. If 1.0 shipped with > transducers and 1.7 introduced thread macros to create data pipelines, > people would probably go now: "why should I use a macro instead of comp", > "they are slow", "they don't compose easily" etc. > > What do you think? Am I missing something?
Well, inertia is probably the biggest reason, combined with the documentation. When you have a FAQ which is "what are good use cases for transducers", surely this is an issue. I've never used one yet, except by accident when I forget an argument to a function that previously would have crashed. Phil -- 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.
