On May 21, 2009, at 1:32 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> I can't say if there is an important difference between Haskell and
> Clojure
> implementation-wise.
I would be surprised if the basic idea (passing thunks instead of
values) were different or could be much different. On the other hand,
On May 20, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> Seems like Haskell's laziness has an aura of "it will bite you
> performance-wise sooner or later." What is different (I'm asking
> didactically, not snarkily) about Clojure's laziness? Does it manage
> to avoid some aspects of the "uh o
On 21.05.2009, at 01:42, Raoul Duke wrote:
> Seems like Haskell's laziness has an aura of "it will bite you
> performance-wise sooner or later." What is different (I'm asking
> didactically, not snarkily) about Clojure's laziness? Does it manage
> to avoid some aspects of the "uh ohs" in Haskell?
are you saying that Haskell has amortized, not worst-case performance and so
fast operations need to be paid for ... like when you have to ripple-carry
in binary counting to pay for times when you didn't have to carry the one?
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> Seems
hi,
Seems like Haskell's laziness has an aura of "it will bite you
performance-wise sooner or later." What is different (I'm asking
didactically, not snarkily) about Clojure's laziness? Does it manage
to avoid some aspects of the "uh ohs" in Haskell?
many thanks.
--~--~-~--~~---
