Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
clojure-goes-fast.com
Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#2i need to figure out where my slowdown is happening...I'll be needing a phd for that
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#3Not sure if the "transducer" approach suggested as a workaround makes your life easier or further adds to the mental overhead. See https://www.astrecipes.net/blog/2016/11/24/transducers-how-t... for some example transducers.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#4Not sure if the "transducer" approach suggested as a workaround makes your life easier or further adds to the mental overhead. See https://www.astrecipes.net/blog/2016/11/24/transducers-how-t... for some example transducers.
Transducers aren’t just faster, they offer more functionality, with the ability to reuse the logic no matter where your inputs and outputs are coming from. So it’s no real surprise that there’s more implementation complexity. Client code isn’t much more complex, and arguably lower mental overhead because you can give stacks of transducers names without having to introduce a whole new function with a sequence as an argument.
Obviously in languages that can reliably perform stream fusion transparently, maybe you care less, but the abstraction isn’t just about the speedup.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#5i need to figure out where my slowdown is happening...I'll be needing a phd for that
Even something as simple as VisualVM makes this fairly easy for Clojure code.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#6I've been circling around lisp for a couple of years. I'm starting in a month, I'll spend several hours a day. I still don't know what language I want to learn.
I was drawn to Clojure because it looked like a lisp for getting stuff done. But a few things put me off. This article puts me off more. I want to get the semantics down before I have to think about what's going on under the hood.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#7I've been circling around lisp for a couple of years. I'm starting in a month, I'll spend several hours a day. I still don't know what language I want to learn. I was drawn to Clojure because it looked like a lisp for getting stuff done. But a few things put me off. This article puts me off more. I want to get the semantics down before I have to think about what's going on under the hood.
I'm sorry my article had such an effect on you. Despite the inconveniences, it is still a very worthy language to pick up.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#8I've been circling around lisp for a couple of years. I'm starting in a month, I'll spend several hours a day. I still don't know what language I want to learn. I was drawn to Clojure because it looked like a lisp for getting stuff done. But a few things put me off. This article puts me off more. I want to get the semantics down before I have to think about what's going on under the hood.
You won't start anything. I dare you. Haha.
You can't learn Clojure and you know it.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#9Not sure if the "transducer" approach suggested as a workaround makes your life easier or further adds to the mental overhead. See https://www.astrecipes.net/blog/2016/11/24/transducers-how-t... for some example transducers.
Transducers aren’t just faster, they offer more functionality, with the ability to reuse the logic no matter where your inputs and outputs are coming from. So it’s no real surprise that there’s more implementation complexity. Client code isn’t much more complex, and arguably lower mental overhead because you can give stacks of transducers names without having to introduce a whole new function with a sequence as an ar…
I saw this a couple of days ago somewhere and I think it belongs in the discussion between lazy-seqs and transducers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed_theory
You can't hide from complexity. It will lurk somewhere anyway.
Re: Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
#10The main issue is that Clojure compiler doesn't really optimize lazy sequences right ? Most language compilers do this. Rust lazy iterators for example many times exhibit faster performance than for-lops.
And clojure also doesn't give an error/warning when lazy sequences aren't finalized.