> > Is really any call that isn't inlined that expensive? > > Yes, unfortunately. You saw the numbers. :)
If you mean the earlier thread about the Euler problem, I see that the diagonal-sum-3 drastically outperforms diagonal-sum-2 by eliminating HOFs and working with unchecked primitive ops. Eliminating the use of HOFs mainly boils down to eliminating lazy-seqs, which bring both memory and cpu overheads. But if all I have to pay for is a simple function call (the function being referenced by a local), it may not be much of a problem, especially on HotSpot, which will probably be able to inline that code anyway. Of course, if those function calls introduce boxing that otherwise wouldn't happen, that's a clear performance issue. Am I wrong about this? > Oh, and we'll finally be able to call functions with long and double > primitive args and not just boxed numbers. :) I think this is the one related to "Unless you're using 1.3 or later..." since it allows for sub-functions that don't break the primitive chain. > I don't think the loop in diagonal-sum-3 (see other thread) is really > "non-idiomatic", /for code that needs speed/. But generally, it is even better when your clean-looking code performs well -- and if the compiler can achieve that, it obsoletes any specialized idioms for optimal code. -- 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
