On Dec 29, 2014 11:09 AM, "Ross Paterson" <R.Paterson@city.ac.uk> wrote:
> Those choices will beat Seq on particular operation mixes, but the virtue
> of Seq is that it gives decent performance over a broad set of operations.

One of the nice things about that is that you can use Seq when you're still figuring out just what your program will be doing with its sequences and get a pretty good idea of the general performance characteristics. If Seq turns out to be a constant-factor performance bottleneck, you can replace it with something more specialized later, once you know *exactly* what operations you need.