On 23 Oct 2013, at 14:18, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If set construction was 1000X worse why don't the smaller problem sizes > exhibit exactly the same issue? If the Scala version requires 12G why is the > Clojure version steady at 300M? Both excellent questions. > Aren't Scala for comprehensions optimized now into lower level loops? Clojure > for comprehensions generate lazy sequences and all the allocation and forcing > of thunks that implies. I don't think so - AFAIK Scala's "for" statement is rewritten into flatMap and map under the hood. Happy to be corrected though. -- paul.butcher->msgCount++ Snetterton, Castle Combe, Cadwell Park... Who says I have a one track mind? http://www.paulbutcher.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbutcher MSN: p...@paulbutcher.com AIM: paulrabutcher Skype: paulrabutcher -- -- 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.
