I use TDD and mocking/stubbing (conjure) to test each layer of my code.
The problem is when I change the function signature and the tests do not
break, because the mocks/stubs do not know when their argument lists no
longer agree with the underlying function they are mocking. Is there a way
t
I've always done the full database setup and tear down thing, but that's made
sufficiently performant with datomics in memory store. Consider using
transactions to isolate tests, or use Midje, which is more designed for this
kind of usage.
--Ashton
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 31, 2014, at 9
This is one of the main reasons why I try to stay clear of heavy use of
invasive mocks. I can't tell you the amount of times I've looked at code
and realized that because of mocks nothing was really being tested at all.
Instead, think of mocks as the terminator in a test chain. That is to say,
they
On Dec 31, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Timothy Baldridge wrote:
> This is one of the main reasons why I try to stay clear of heavy use of
> invasive mocks. I can't tell you the amount of times I've looked at code and
> realized that because of mocks nothing was really being tested at all.
> Instead, thin
I just started to play with macros in Clojure. The following is a simple
example that expands to:
(on-message "topic-test" (clojure.core/fn [topic13730] (println topic13730
"test")))
To make this work I had to replace the symbol 'topic in the body with the
gensym symbol. Is this the right wa
On 12/31/2014 18:56, rogergl wrote:
> To make this work I had to replace the symbol 'topic in the body with
> the gensym symbol. Is this the right way to do this ?
Your macro is too complicated. You don't need to gensym a symbol in this
case. Instead just quote a symbol before unquoting it (note
I just cut Om 0.8.0-rc1. The only change from prior betas/alphas is
more bug fixes.
https://github.com/swannodette/om
Feedback welcome!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.c
Hi,
Clojure newbie here :) I'm reading "Programming Clojure" by Halloway and
Bedra. In the book there is a lazy-seq example of the Fibonacci sequence:
(defn lazy-seq-fibo
([]
(concat [0 1] (lazy-seq-fibo 0N 1N)))
([a b]
(let [n (+ a b)]
(lazy-seq
The first thing that jumps out at me are the boxed numbers: 0N and 1N. I'm
guessing the Clojure implementation can produce a much larger result than
the python implementation can - so, apples to oranges. Probably unbox the
numbers and you get much more comparable speed.
Also, you should defin
I was going to say that testing JVM programs is notoriously tricky due to JIT
warm up. Did you run that function enough to warm it before taking your timings?
This is why micro benchmark frameworks are popular.
--Ashton
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 31, 2014, at 7:04 PM, Daniel wrote:
>
> Th
A few comments:
Your two pieces of code aren't really equivalent:
a) The Python code is just calculating a fibonacci number in a brute force
iterative loop.
b) The Clojure code is creating a big (infinite, lazy) data structure of
all fibonacci numbers, lazily realising the structure in memory an
My results with hotspot 1.7.0_51, clojure 1.7.0-alpha4 are 13s for python
and 15s for clojure.
I also tested the python version translated to clojure:
(defn fib [n]
(loop [n n a 0N b 1N]
(if (zero? n) a (recur (dec n) b (+ a b)
Which was also 15s! I think all the time in the clojure v
Hmmm, I'm really not convinced by the answer I gave you ...
I hope someone else with better xp than me with core.async (not hard !)
will answer to you and correct me.
Le lundi 29 décembre 2014, Laurent PETIT a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I'm still a newbie with core.async myself, but I'll try to answe
13 matches
Mail list logo
