are you saying that Haskell has amortized, not worst-case performance and so fast operations need to be paid for ... like when you have to ripple-carry in binary counting to pay for times when you didn't have to carry the one?
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Raoul Duke <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi, > > Seems like Haskell's laziness has an aura of "it will bite you > performance-wise sooner or later." What is different (I'm asking > didactically, not snarkily) about Clojure's laziness? Does it manage > to avoid some aspects of the "uh ohs" in Haskell? > > many thanks. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
