On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Heinz N. Gies <he...@licenser.net> wrote:
> > But lets look at the other side of the coin, performance. We all want it - > of cause otherwise we'd put a lot of (Thread/sleep 1000) in our code but, > again lets face the reality, most of us don't need it. Most of the time we > don't need to do fac or fib or very fast math, in 90% of the cases what > clojure offers is just fast enough since the bottle necks isn't arithmetics. > For the rest 10% of the cases, well if you are in that case you likely have > a complex algorithm. This again means that you belong to the people who > really know what they are doing, and know what your algorithm works, given > that someone in this position should know where to put performance > optimization so the fact that it needs to be explict isn't that horrible in > my eyes usually the code that has to be made more complex is alway some kind > of focus code where you do way more then just toss a few statics on it and > hope that it is fast but try every trick to get it fast - so you'll have the > work anyway. > > > I am not sure (= (* 20 not-a-bottleneck) not-a-bottleneck) or more precisely: (= (* 20 not-a-bottleneck-1 ... not-a-bottleneck-250) not-a-bottleneck) -- 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
