2 ms·

As far as I understand it, Factor has a regular grammar and macros, so I don't see any reason why it couldn't do exactly what I've done here with Clojure. My c

• plinkplonk 17y ago
  "My comment above was referring more to Java, which is generally considered to be the apex of potential performance for Clojure, but which would completely incapable of something like this." Ok, No arguments then, if the expressiveness, succinctness and malleability of java vs Clojure were the point of comparison. Factor vs Clojure would be a dead heat I imagine. The original article makes the statement " That's 4x faster than the optimized Factor code, and more than 10x faster than Java." I was saying this comparison is not only meaningless but misleading. The statements should be something like "The Clojure code (which compiles to the GPU) is 4x faster than the optimized Factor code (which compiles to the CPU) , and more than 10x faster than Java(which compiles to the CPU). GPUs and CPUs make different speed tradeoffs so the above is meaningless btw " For language speed comparisons to be (somewhat) meaningful, they should have a common baseline environment. If each language compiles to a different type of chip (GPU vs CPU in this case) there is no valid "comparison".