So for the record, java.util.HashMap is startlingly faster than Scala's mutable.Map. I'm not actually sure why one would use the latter.
-
-
Replying to @djspiewak
@jboner IMO mutable collections == performance optimization. I'd rather have persistent collections + mutable builders only.5 replies 5 retweets 13 likes -
absolutr gem of conversation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Speaking of gems, anyone like the Clojure transient-persistent design?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Transients are cool. Kinda similar in practice to how you use ListBuffer. But I haven’t needed them in Scala.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I am sort of a s.c.i.List-hater. :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
For small collections, it’s a lot faster than Vector.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
For small collections, a thin wrapper over Array is better ;-)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Very true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I still have memories of you at @nescalas 2011 telling us that vectors are really really really really really really really fast!
-
-
Replying to @propensive
:-D They are. Just… not as fast as I need sometimes. Also Scala’s Vector has a massive amount of unnecessary overhead.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.