If that's really true for Ember.js that's great! I'm curious as to why it performs so badly? http://www.petehunt.net/react/tastejs/benchmark.html
The project is async-tut1 not async-tutl. Look at your project.clj.
ClojureScript has had performance escape hatches for some time. It's pretty much always possible to get the performance of hand written JS, important otherwise our data structures would be lame. We'll likely document…
No the post advocates generators plus a competent channel abstraction. It's going to be hard to compare generator libraries to core.async, far as I can tell none employ the comprehensive set of optimizations that we do…
If that's really true for Ember.js that's great! I'm curious as to why it performs so badly? http://www.petehunt.net/react/tastejs/benchmark.html
The project is async-tut1 not async-tutl. Look at your project.clj.
ClojureScript has had performance escape hatches for some time. It's pretty much always possible to get the performance of hand written JS, important otherwise our data structures would be lame. We'll likely document…
No the post advocates generators plus a competent channel abstraction. It's going to be hard to compare generator libraries to core.async, far as I can tell none employ the comprehensive set of optimizations that we do…