On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:43:11 -0500
Robert McIntyre <r...@mit.edu> wrote:
> @Mike Meyer
> Using apply is different than what I'm doing.
Yup.
> When I use eval I'm trying to evaluate a huge s-expression.
> When you use apply you're evaluating a s-expression with three
> elements. Same thing with the count form (except with two elements).
> The problem isn't because I'm calling eval or not using idiomatic
> clojure; I just wrote it that way so it would only take one line.
I did agree that there was a problem.
The thing is, quasiquotes in clojure were designed for use in macros,
and using them outside macros sometimes generates weird results: I
wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here. My first attempt - in
idiomatic clojure - didn't recreate it. So I went a bit further afield
to do so.
> Are we really OK with having a 30 year old (Common Lisp/Lisp Machine)
> that operates at megahertz speeds do better than (clojure/JVM) here?
Yes, I'm OK that a LISP running on an architecture that's the end
result of decades of research on creating machines that run LISP well
has fewer and/or higher limits than a LISP running on a VM designed to
run Java.
I'm not even sure it's worth any effort in fixing. You're not going to
run into this limit except in machine-generated code, and there's an
easy work-around: generate (apply fun (sequence)) instead of (fun
sequence).
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
--
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
