On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:07:27 PM UTC-8, Aaron France wrote:
What's the benefit of hiding/abstracting the underlying platform away?
The obvious answer to this is it limits exposure to the complexity of the
underlying platform, and provides a stable platform. That's usually why
people
In a broader sense, it's because Clojure was designed to embrace the underlying
runtime. As well as eliminating problems with leaky abstractions (as others
have pointed out), it also encourages post to other runtimes like the CLR and
JavaScript (clojurescript)
Does anyone have a link to a
I tried asking this on twitter and wasn't getting my question across in 140
characters so I decided to post here.
I'm curious as to why Clojure as a language hasn't abstracted/hidden all of
Java's classes and created their own in the Clojure. namespace.
For example
Big Ints are of type and
Hi,
What's the benefit of hiding/abstracting the underlying platform away?
There are reams of documentation about the Java classes and simply
renaming them to say they are Clojure classes would seem to reduce the
discoverability of those docs.
JMTC
Aaron
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 02:50:01PM
It would be a bad idea to wrap up everything in custom types:
a) It would add a performance overhead. Better to use the Java types
directly - they are very well optimised on the JVM
b) It would make it much harder to use Java libraries and APIs. Java APIs
expect the correct Java type, and
There's a nice explanation on why Clojure has BigInt in Clojure
Programminghttp://www.clojurebook.com/ (page
428). Like Mikera wrote, there were two reasons: one was that Java's
BigInteger's hashCode is not consistent with Long's hashCode. Secondly
Clojure BigInts have been optimized for
