It would be a bad idea to wrap up everything in custom types: a) It would add a performance overhead. Better to use the Java types directly - they are very well optimised on the JVM b) It would make it much harder to use Java libraries and APIs. Java APIs expect the correct Java type, and wouldn't understand clojure.lang.String for example c) There's no real advantage to reinventing the wheel. The Java types are already pretty good for what they are designed for, e.g. String is fast and immutable. d) It would be a lot of extra work. People have better things to do in this community, I think!
The clojure.lang.BigInt is a special case - There was probably some good reason to reimplement java.math.BigInteger (perhaps: performance? getting a consistent hashcode?) Likewise clojure.lang.Ratio doesn't have a good equivalent in the Java API, so needed to be a new implementation. On Monday, 3 February 2014 06:50:01 UTC+8, Mark Gandolfo wrote: > > I tried asking this on twitter and wasn't getting my question across in > 140 characters so I decided to post here. > I'm curious as to why Clojure as a language hasn't abstracted/hidden all > of Java's classes and created their own in the Clojure. namespace. > > For example > > Big Ints are of type and class Clojure.lang.BigInt. > > user=> (type 10000N) > clojure.lang.BigInt > user=> (class 10000N) > clojure.lang.BigInt > > > Although a Long is a java.lang.Long both in type and class > > user=> (class 1) > java.lang.Long > user=> (type 1) > java.lang.Long > > > Similarly a character is of type java.long.Character > > user=> (type \a) > java.lang.Character > user=> (class \a) > java.lang.Character > > > Again with Java strings > > user=> (class "string") > java.lang.String > user=> (type "string") > java.lang.String > > > Although a Strings have a few functions in the clojure.strings namespace > which can be accessed. Why wouldn't clojure.lang.string be the type? And > somehow inherit/remap all of the java string functions? > Was this design decision made during the languages conception to clean up > the clojure namespaces? Or is there another reason that I'm not seeing? > > > -- 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.
