On Jun 22, 2010, at 7:47 , David Nolen wrote: > If you're going to give example of what the current branch is like, at least > write the code how a primitive Clojurian would write it: > ... I feel his examples were on purpose not given as a 'primitive' clojurian or a 'boxing' one would write them but how a random one who has not thought about this would write them. And he has a good point most libraries and codes out in reality and not discussion club (not meaning I don't enjoy it a lot :P) is written by those and might very well run into this problems.
> Yes. With Rich's primitive work we can get to *1 billion arithmetic > operations* in < 2/3 of a second on commodity hardware. Which is absolutely great since I always wanted to do that :P <sarcasm/>, meaning the example is kind of far fetched even compared to fact (which is working code with useful results). I actually think Mark makes a good point, if optimization compromises results it should be extra effort (think gcc's flag for not initialized integers for example) or unchecked math as it exists now. It might sound silly but there are some smart people out there who are smart but not experienced, examples as Mark gave above might be mistakes in their libraries someday in the feature :). Regards, Heinz -- 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
