I put an update in my original post, and I also (like you) timed
without the side effects I'd inserted (empty-string print statements).
Unlike your code, I'm using non-constant strings, which might explain
the difference.
I note:
The 1,000 string length comparisons take 0.184ms; the negative set
> Nice writeup!
Thanks!
> ...and I hate to be picky, but you can probably compare
> strings sizes using a faster mechanism than the examples you
> gave.
Yeah, I figured I must have been doing something wrong, but I thought
I'd leave it out there as a bit of ethnographic research :)
> So now
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Richard Newman wrote:
>
> Thought I'd share with the group. Clojure's sets are fast!
>
> http://www.holygoat.co.uk/blog/entry/2009-09-13-1
Nice writeup!
...and I hate to be picky, but you can probably compare
strings sizes using a faster mechanism than the examp
Thought I'd share with the group. Clojure's sets are fast!
http://www.holygoat.co.uk/blog/entry/2009-09-13-1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to cloju
