> On Jan 17, 2015, at 6:04 PM, Matching Socks <phill.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Did you find something really wrong with defstruct? Occasions when the basis > fields are not known to the programmer seem better met by defstruct than > defrecord. And defstruct has not been deprecated in the API documentation. > The comment "Note: Most uses of StructMaps would now be better served by > records"[1] probably refers to times when you know the fields! Is there > really a need to bend over backwards to switch natural defstruct usage over > to records? > > [1] http://clojure.org/data_structures <http://clojure.org/data_structures>
I had thought that there was something closer to deprecation of defstruct in the documentation, or at least that deprecation was advocated by lots of people when we discussed it there. And then we did some speed tests in our application, and at least from the tests that we did, it appeared records were indeed faster by an amount that mattered for us. -Lee -- 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/d/optout.
