On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM, David Nolen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Ken Wesson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, David Nolen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ken Wesson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > Am 29.12.2010 um 19:36 schrieb Ken Wesson: >> >> > >> >> >> Who needs to muck about with the stack and recur when you've got >> >> >> laziness? :) >> >> > >> >> > Even then you have to take care, because stacking lazy seq on lazy >> >> > seq >> >> > on … might also result in a stackoverflow. >> >> >> >> True, but it's far less common to have lazy operations like maps >> >> nested 100,000 deep than it is to have seqs 100,000 items long. :) >> > >> > You only need to nest lazy operations 1000 levels deep before you blow >> > the >> > stack w/ default JVM settings (on OS X, I imagine it's similar for other >> > systems). >> >> Eww. Apple's JVM sucketh greatly. I'd be surprised if the default >> maximum stack depth isn't at *least* 32,768 on Sun's Hotspot, given >> how rarely I get SOEs outside of actually unbounded recursions (and >> how blasted long the resulting traces are when they're dump into my >> repl! So much for using backscroll afterward). > > Doh, actually, I might have been messing around with my JVM stack size > recently. I see that the default stack depth on OS X is more like ~43000 :) > David
OK, I take back what I said about Apple's JVM. It sucketh greatly but for completely different reasons. ;) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
