2008-05-18
| 09:52 | blackdog | would it be fair to say that clojure would have a performance closer to scala than jruby for example? |
| 09:55 | rhickey | I can't comment on Scala, but let's say Java instead. Yes, should be closer to Java _except_ for numerics, where Clojure is currently stuck with boxed numbers like the other dynamic languages. There are opportunities to inline some ops within-function (I think Kawa does some of that, but Clojure currently does not). |
| 09:57 | blackdog | thanks for the answer, i'm trying to learn clojure as my first lisp |
| 09:58 | blackdog | so far so good, thanks! |
| 09:58 | rhickey | you're welcome |
| 10:38 | ozzilee | rhickey: I've been reading backwards in the "enhanced host call syntax" thread. If we get rid of the "hosty" (s.substring 2 5) syntax, couldn't we always assume (x.y ...) refers to package.class, thus using (foo.bar baz) as (new foo.bar baz)? |
| 19:08 | Chouser | I (and therefore the channel log) was offline for a while there. |
| 19:08 | Chouser | The last thing I have is ozzilee asking about the hosty syntax this morning. Did I miss anything? |
| 19:10 | agriffis | no |
| 19:11 | Chouser | great, thanks. |