Piyush, I would have to disagree. If fft1976 was a troll then he wouldn't be contributing meaningfully and substantively to testing performance in Clojure on another thread. So I think your accusation was unfair. That said, I did find some of fft1976's comments to be somewhat unnecessarily testy considering how friendly the Clojure community is in general.
Rob On Aug 12, 5:25 am, Piyush Ranjan <piyush...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a troll question. I have seen similar questions posted on other > forums about languages like ruby, CL, Haskell, Prolog, C, C++, fortran, > bigloo(?) etc by the same poster. > > Try this link:http://www.google.co.in/search?q=fft1976%40gmail.com > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Nicolas Oury <nicolas.o...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > Just wanted to add a small remark. If you look at the shootout, most > > languages considered now to be very efficient has been once said to be > > very very slow and not usable. > > > In the eighties, functional languages were doomed to be slow and > > unusable for anything. And Ocaml/MLton and the like are now very fast. > > > Next laziness was thought to be too slow to be practical, and now > > someone used ghc in this thread as an example of fast language. > > I think everybody remembers what was being said about java 10 years ago. > > And now java is the goal to attain. > > I even think than C and C++ where too slow to be usable at their time. > > > Getting a compiler to produce fast code takes time and Clojure is young. > > > What would be more useful than this discussion would be to take > > fragments of code that looks inexplicably slow, profile them, and > > transform them by hand to be faster. > > And keep a wiki with which transformation gives which performance > > improvement. > > This could serve 3 goals: > > - giving ideas to people on how to optimize (the doc does not contain > > every trick); > > - allow to write ugly but very efficient macros, that can be used in > > bottlenecks ; > > - give ideas to which code transformation performed by the compiler > > will improve performance and by how much. > > > What is sure is that there is no reason why clojure should be slow, when > > some functional languages (including dynamically typed ones) are fast. > > So, one day, it will be fast. > > > Best, > > > Nicolas. > > > On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 21:20 -0700, James Sofra wrote: > > > Hi fft1976, > > > > > If you use Java's arrays and declare all types, should Clojure be as > > > > fast as the equivalent Java? > > > > <snip> > > > > So is the question you are trying to ask that since we have unwrapped > > > access to Java is Java code written in Clojure as fast as if it were > > > written as actual Java code? > > > > I guess that is a worthwhile question since it would at least tell you > > > (if you are worried about speed) whether it is worth while dropping > > > down to write actual Java code or if you can just write your Java in > > > Clojure (as unidomatic as that Clojure code may be). > > > > I am sorry I don't have an answer for you, just wanted to clear up the > > > question. > > > > Cheers, > > > James --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
