3 ms·
> So O(log n) then. We obey gravity around these parts. Which is of no practical difference to O(1) if log n is always very small. > I presume you are referri
by weavejester 14y ago
> So O(log n) then. We obey gravity around these parts.
Which is of no practical difference to O(1) if log n is always very small.
> I presume you are referring to HAMT-like structures... which are by no means unique to Clojure.
Of course they're not. My point was that it is not trivial to derive a efficient and useful data structure like a HAMT from Haskell's type system. The data structures in a library like unordered-containers are in practise just as opaque to the developer as the core data structures in Clojure.
- dons 14y ago> as opaque to the developer http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/unordered-containers/0.2.3.0/doc/html/src/Data-HashMap-Base.html#HashMap http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/unordered-contai... This highly optimized data type is defined in 6 lines, easily accessible from the docs.
- weavejester 14y agoNo it isn't, at least not in any meaningful way. The type definition itself may be 6 lines, but that doesn't adequately describe the data structure, otherwise there'd be no need for the rest of the library.