I think defrecord has 5 downsides compared to regular map.
1. The literal of regular map is eye-friendly and portable.
However I still don't know how helpful instant literals added in clojure
1.4 is for records.
2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
Sometimes, I feel that a lack of construction with key-value style is
not convenient.
3. Replacing all regular maps to records simply make code volume increase.
4. Records easily loose their type.
(merge {:c 3 :d 4} (Foo. 1 2))
;=> {:a 1, :b 2, :c 3, :d 4}
5. Regular map is a persistent data structure, which has internally
efficient tree data structure, but record is compiled into class with
fields as something like POJO.
I suspect efficiency of record when repeated assoc/dissoc.
But I could be wrong.
Regards,
Takahiro.
On Monday, July 23, 2012 12:54:03 PM UTC+9, Warren Lynn wrote:
>
> I don't think you're in the minority. I prefer regular maps to records
>
>> in general. struct-map was deprecated "a long time ago" (in Clojure
>> 1.2). clojure.java.jdbc stopped using struct-map a while back - at the
>> recommendation of Clojure/core - in favor of regular maps.
>>
>> Chas Emerick's flowchart is very helpful here I think:
>>
>> http://cemerick.com/2011/07/05/flowchart-for-choosing-the-right-clojure-type-definition-form/
>>
>>
>>
> Could you elaborate a little bit more? I know there is a chart, but the
> chart does not tell you why. Again, if record provides everything a map can
> provide, why would you prefer regular map? I thought at most you would say
> "it does not make much difference", and that would mean "no harm" to me.
>
--
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
