News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:ICFP '09: "Get rid of cons!" Guy Steele on parallel algor... by dreish on Thursday September 10, 2009 @01:36PM (#815727)
This is confusing the difference between concurrency and parallelism, the latter of which Clojure doesn't yet address.

If your program is divided into threads, having a language like Clojure that makes concurrency easy and lock-free is a wonderful thing, and of course you get some benefit from running on multiple cores, though I don't think that's entirely the point.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a faster way to map a function across eight million lines in a flat file, using Clojure's map function won't magically make your program run faster (and pmap might not run at all -- you may run out of memory, since pmap isn't truly lazy).

The fact that a Clojure PersistentVector (not a PersistentList) is implemented with a 32-way tree (not 64-way) does not imply that Clojure has abandoned the car/cdr paradigm in favor of conc lists -- it still uses cons, in a more generic form, but still with the same first/rest concept. The trees allow vectors to be inexpensively persistent, so you can have actual practical immutable vectors.

Re:ICFP '09: "Get rid of cons!" Guy Steele on parallel algor... by tsally on Thursday September 10, 2009 @02:39PM (#815862)
Ah yes, a silly mistake on my part. I am hoping that eventually Clojure will help the programmer write parallel algorithms, but you are correct in that such constructs don't exist in the language at this moment.
Re:ICFP '09: "Get rid of cons!" Guy Steele on parallel algor... by richhickey on Friday September 11, 2009 @03:22PM (#817941)
Re:ICFP '09: "Get rid of cons!" Guy Steele on parallel algor... by cperkins on Monday September 21, 2009 @04:53PM (#835550)
sweet. Another incf for Clojure.

Is there auto tree balancing?

Re:ICFP '09: "Get rid of cons!" Guy Steele on parallel algor... by tsally on Tuesday September 22, 2009 @10:35PM (#838499)
Just saw your reply. That's kickass.