On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Chris Riddoch <riddo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:09 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > However from > > what I've seen the past couple of years, Clojure tends to emphasize > > performance while providing acceptable fallbacks for those cases where > > people want something more flexible / dynamic. And things are continuing > to > > move in that direction - not the other way around. > > Without any specific code to benchmark, isn't this whole discussion > mostly premature optimization? I mean, we're all making assertions > about what will be slow and what won't without having anything to > actually test. I'd prefer to reserve judgment until someone's got > working code to evaluate. > I've come to dislike the bandying about of "premature optimization". Premature optimization is wasting time optimizing when you don't understand the problem space. That is not the case here. It's just about convenience. David -- 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
