Curious if anyone has given Lush a try here? http://lush.sourceforge.net/
It's essentially a lisp-like way to write C, with lots of integration
with libraries to do numerical computing, machine learning, etc.
Carson
On Nov 24, 5:47 pm, CuppoJava wrote:
> I must admit that even though I love Clo
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:47 PM, CuppoJava wrote:
>
> Numerical software involves a lot of array indexing, and loops, and
> not much else. Clojure's functional data structures are elegant, but
> are not quite fast enough for heavy numerical processing so I still
> need to use native arrays. And if
On Nov 24, 2010, at 7:47 PM, CuppoJava wrote:
> The other reason is that Clojure emphasizes functional programming and
> discourages mutation. This is fine, as I believe well-written code is
> usually functional anyway. The problem is that bad code is usually
> easier to write in an imperative way
I must admit that even though I love Clojure and use it daily for many
things, I don't like using it very much for my research (machine
learning) which involves a lot of number crunching.
The main reasons being:
Numerical software involves a lot of array indexing, and loops, and
not much else. Cl
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:20:49 -0800 (PST)
cej38 wrote:
> I am a physicist. I have been using Clojure full time for the last
> year and a half. The reasons that Rich (and most other Clojure
> evangelists) give for using Clojure, are all nice and good, but they
> point to what computer scientists
Another thought:
9. Unit testing is much easier! The effort it takes to write unit
tests is Fortran is so high, it might as well be impossible, and thus
almost no one does it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, se
Having a fast code is important, but as I have often said to
colleagues, computer time is cheap, my time is not. If I can write
code that does the same thing in two languages, and the code written
in one language runs in half the time of the other, while the code in
the other language took half th
> I am a physicist. I have been using Clojure full time for the last
> year and a half. The reasons that Rich (and most other Clojure
> evangelists) give for using Clojure, are all nice and good, but they
> point to what computer scientists think about. If you want scientists
> and engineers to
yes
On Nov 24, 12:28 pm, Joop Kiefte wrote:
> 2010/11/24 cej38 :
>
>
>
>
>
> > 5. ease of changing function calls to allow for extra stuff/
> > functionality without breaking other stuff. An example would be best
> > here. Suppose I had defined some function that worked for a specific
> > purpo
2010/11/24 cej38 :
> 5. ease of changing function calls to allow for extra stuff/
> functionality without breaking other stuff. An example would be best
> here. Suppose I had defined some function that worked for a specific
> purpose:
>
> (defn setzero [value]
> "If value is less than 1.0E-8 set
I am a physicist. I have been using Clojure full time for the last
year and a half. The reasons that Rich (and most other Clojure
evangelists) give for using Clojure, are all nice and good, but they
point to what computer scientists think about. If you want scientists
and engineers to think abou
11 matches
Mail list logo
