If I run this code:
(def ibounds 100)
(let [arlist (new java.util.ArrayList ibounds)]
(dotimes [i ibounds]
(.add arlist 0))
(time (dotimes [x 100]
(dotimes [i ibounds]
(.set arlist i 1)
(let [arlist (make-array Integer/TYPE ibounds)]
(tim
I finally see what warn-on-reflection does.
It wasn't working in netbeans, it works in emacs.
On Jun 14, 2:48 pm, CuppoJava wrote:
> It looks like a case of reflection being used.
> I would set *warn-on-reflection* to true, and just check which method
> is not being resolved.
>
> My guess is pr
I think Andy's number 10 program is only 3 times slower now.
On Aug 14, 4:47 pm, fft1976 wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:30 am, Nicolas Oury wrote:
>
> > Next laziness was thought to be too slow to be practical, and now
> > someone used ghc in this thread as an example of fast language.
>
> There is a lo
Oh, sorry I didn't realize that your post was delayed. So I guess my
other response was irrelevant.
On Aug 14, 4:47 pm, fft1976 wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:30 am, Nicolas Oury wrote:
>
> > Next laziness was thought to be too slow to be practical, and now
> > someone used ghc in this thread as an exam
I think the problem is the typecasting and the bit-shifting. I think
both involve casting one of the parameters to a java.lang.Number.
On Sep 7, 5:03 am, rivercheng wrote:
> Hi, icemaze:
>
> With trying the following code, I found now Clojure is only around 15
> times slower than Java. (java6 -s
I think the problem is the typecasting and the bit-shifting. I think
both involve casting one of the parameters to a java.lang.Number.
On Sep 7, 5:03 am, rivercheng wrote:
> Hi, icemaze:
>
> With trying the following code, I found now Clojure is only around 15
> times slower than Java. (java6 -s
Why not avoid all the keywords and create let-cond?
(let-cond [a x b (* a 4)]
(> b x) 1
:else 2)
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:01:33 AM UTC-8, Evan Gamble wrote:
>
> Another way to flatten nested lets and conds is to use a macro that
> lets you insert conditionals in your lets (vs. your sugge
