I think correctness > performance, at least in a core function that's so widely used
I don’t want to speak for Alex or any of the Clojure/core folks but… The general position taken in Clojure so far could be more accurately categorized as Garbage-In-Garbage-Out, in favor of performance. In other words, Clojure functions are usually designed for performance on correct data and in correct usage situations – and just fail or do something odd/unpleasant when used on the wrong data or in the wrong situation. The solution to “it blows up when I do X” is “don’t do X” rather than making X slower for everyone, in order to make X deal “better” with cases it wasn’t designed for. It’s why, for example, many things simply blow up with a ClassCastException rather than adding conditional checks – and slowing everyone down – just to produce a “better” error message. Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood From: divya...@helpshift.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 3:45 AM To: Clojure Subject: Re: Has the (left recursive blowing) concat function been fixed? Hi Alex, No, this didn't move forward. I don't think it was ever actually filed in the jira system? Hmm. There are lots of ways to avoid this problem (into, transducers, etc) and in practice I think most people don't find it to be an actual issue. Well, we did face this issue in production some time back, and it took quite some time to figure out what was going wrong. Reading comments on the linked post on Stu's blog shows that quite a lot of other people have also been affected by it. I have not looked closely at the proposed solution, but beyond the basic "does it work" question, there are also a lot of questions about performance, etc that would be need to be evaluated. I think correctness > performance, at least in a core function that's so widely used (or maybe put a "warning: don't use in eager contexts" in the doc). Please let me know if I can help in any way. I'll run tests and some microbenchmarks on this and get back to you. Thanks, - Divyansh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
