gaspersic/freeCodeCamp
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

corrected spelling of 'optimization' (#32755)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Nextheory Labs
2019-01-16 05:03:06 +05:30
committed by Tom
parent 43f64a4204
commit eda241e370
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
guide/english/clojure/looprecur/index.md
View File

@ -66,9 +66,9 @@ You might be wondering why you would use `loop/recur` rather than simply definin
This is more concise, and works in a similar way. Why would you _ever_ use loop and recur? This is more concise, and works in a similar way. Why would you _ever_ use loop and recur?
### Tail Call Optimisation ### Tail Call Optimization
If you use `loop/recur`, then the compiler (the software that turns Clojure code into JVM bytecode) knows that you want to create a recursive loop. This means that it tries its hardest to optimise your code for recursion. Let's compare the speed of `fact` and `fact-no-loop`: If you use `loop/recur`, then the compiler (the software that turns Clojure code into JVM bytecode) knows that you want to create a recursive loop. This means that it tries its hardest to optimize your code for recursion. Let's compare the speed of `fact` and `fact-no-loop`:
(time (fact 20)) (time (fact 20))
; => "Elapsed time: 0.083927 msecs" ; => "Elapsed time: 0.083927 msecs"
@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ If you use `loop/recur`, then the compiler (the software that turns Clojure code
![:rocket:](//forum.freecodecamp.com/images/emoji/emoji_one/rocket.png?v=2 ":rocket:") <a href='https://ideone.com/tpC0Xo' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>IDEOne it!</a> ![:rocket:](//forum.freecodecamp.com/images/emoji/emoji_one/rocket.png?v=2 ":rocket:") <a href='https://ideone.com/tpC0Xo' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>IDEOne it!</a>
At this scale, the difference is negligible. In fact, `fact-no-loop` is occasionally faster than `fact` due to the unpredictable nature of computer memory. However, on a larger scale, this kind of optimisation can make your code much, much quicker. At this scale, the difference is negligible. In fact, `fact-no-loop` is occasionally faster than `fact` due to the unpredictable nature of computer memory. However, on a larger scale, this kind of optimization can make your code much, much quicker.
### Nesting Recursion Within functions ### Nesting Recursion Within functions