On Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:50:01 PM UTC+1, bernardH wrote: > FWIW, I, for one, am really glad that Clojure allows us to select > precisely which nice tools we want (have to) throw away (persistent data > structures, dynamic typing, synchronized) when the need arises. Reminds me > of the "don't pay for what you don't use" motto of C++ except done right > (i.e. the other way around, because you don't want to pay wrt simplicity > rather than performance, cf. "premature optimization…")
Don't you think that the real goal is to have performant idiomatic code? That was certainly the aim of the Common Lisp community of the '80s and, from what I hear, idiomatic Haskell is a performance devil as well. Static typing isn't just about type safety, after all; it's also about performance. When the compiler knows everything about your code, it has a much easier time producing killer machine 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 --- 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/groups/opt_out.
