|
|
|
|
|
|
by dangoor
4496 days ago
|
|
|
Mori's data structures are the ones from ClojureScript, so they're designed in a functional, rather than OO, style. I agree it's more foreign in a JS context. For some operations, there are advantages to being able to write functions that just work with generic data rather than objects. I could imagine having a layer on top of Mori that provides a more familiar face while still giving access to the "just data" stuff underneath for performing functional operations. Pete Hunt did just that: https://github.com/petehunt/morimodel/ Mori is sophisticated under the hood. It doesn't do massive amounts of copying or anything like that, so I don't think you need a "batch mode" to make it perform. Perhaps I'm missing something though. Edit: I took a quick look at _tree's code. It's quite different from how I understand Mori to work. Mori exposes Clojure's data structures which implement their own immutable maps, lists and vectors in a way that is very efficient for copying (both in time and space). |
|
|
_tree leans heavily on functional programming techniques, so it's not so different at all. The furthest it gets from functional is the modeling layer implementation, which is prototypal, and still just a thin layer over the core.
I haven't studied any clojurescript, but conceptually, compound operations on immutable structures, such as re-parenting a subtree or sorting a vector/list/set, would be implemented inefficiently without mutable intermediate objects. For example, imagine writing quicksort where exchanges cost O(n) instead of O(1). Performance would totally tank. It'd be silly.
That's why I expect clojurescript has mutable intermediates. I'd love for someone to prove this guess wrong, it would blow my mind. Anyway, that's what _tree's batch mode is, in essence: exposed access to the mutable, pre-finalized versions of _tree primitives.