2011/4/14 Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de>: > Hi again, > > On 14 Apr., 09:42, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What could explain the result of your tests ? (I'm really curious !) > > On the other hand the lazy version really just creates a simple linked > list with some fast boilerplate concerning the laziness. The vectors > however *are* more involved to construct. Their strength is their > performance later on when actually *accessing* the elements. This is > not what we do here. So maybe there is some sense in the results? > However I don't understand the perfomance of the recur solution in > this light.
I don't understand either. Anyway, if there is no flaw in the tests, this could end as a good example of where premature optimization (of CPU at least) via recur does not get the expected result ! -- 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
