On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Timothy Baldridge <tbaldri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Polyfns are exactly as fast as protocol functions (I am using the same >>> caching and dispatch code), but they do not generate a Java interface, >>> and they are slightly simpler to define. > > I think it might be a good idea to discuss why the Java interfaces are > created for protocols.
I don't see how polyfns can be as fast as protocol functions that are defined inline and thus backed by an Java interface. It has not been my experience that this is true at all. extending to a type later is expressive but takes a measurable performance hit as far as I've seen. 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
