On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:19:20 AM UTC+1, Isaac Gouy wrote:
>
> If idiomatic Clojure was used...
>>
>
> The problem, of course, is that: the code one-person considers to be
> idiomatic; another person considers to be idiotic, naïve.
>
Not really. Take Stuart Halloway's opening example in the section entitled *Why
Clojure?*
(defn blank? [s] (every? #(Character/isWhitespace %) s))
Have you ever wondered about its performance? Here you go:
user> (time (dotimes [_ 10000] (blank? "
")))
"Elapsed time: 3887.578 msecs"
Now imagine Stuart's first concern was demonstrating *performant* Clojure:
(defn blank? [^String s]
(if (or (nil? s) (= (.length s) 0))
true
(loop [i 0]
(if (< i (.length s))
(if (Character/isWhitespace (.charAt s i))
(recur (inc i))
false)
true))))
user> (time (dotimes [_ 10000] (blank2? "
")))
"Elapsed time: 4.884 msecs"
Yes, it's *eight hundred times *faster. But, would anyone care for that?
Why bother learning yet another JVM language, with open parens awkwardly
transposed and an inconvenient *loop-recur* construct? This is clearly *not*
idiomatic
Clojure and that is not a subjective appraisal.
-Marko
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
