:) On the other hand, the Common Lisp movement of the '80s was brimming with the can-do attitude of achieving native performance. From Steele, Gabriel, *The Evolution of Lisp*:
the two strongest voices—Steele and Gabriel—were feeling their oats over > their ability to write a powerful compiler to foil the complexities of > Common Lisp. One often heard them, and later Moon, remark that a > “sufficiently smart compiler” could solve a particular problem. Pretty soon > the core group was quoting this “SSC” argument regularly. On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:26:24 PM UTC+1, David Nolen wrote: > > Lisp programmers know the value of everything and the cost of nothing ;) > > On Saturday, February 23, 2013, Marko Topolnik wrote: > >> >>> >> In Clojure this is nohwere close to being true. Idiomatic Clojure is >> concise, expressive, and *slow.* Not 50% slower; not 100% slower; more >> like 100 *times* slower. Optimized Clojure is like a completely >> different language. Have you ever experienced the culture shock of opening >> core.clj? On the other hand, have you ever studied String.java or >> ArrayList.java? No surprises there; just the basic Java you write every day. >> >> -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
