Christopher Wright wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Having to recompile and rerun after every one of those changes just
isn't quite as direct.
If it can be done in under half a second, isn't that direct enough? Of
course, I'm talking about a shell that does it for you.
$ int a = 42;
$ writefln("a = %s", a);
$ double a = 3.0; // rounded to 1 sf
How would you write a prompt that does that with D? Either you store
each successive line in a source file and choke on the third one, or you
compile each line separately and choke on the second.
Or you could examine each line to look for things like redefining of
symbols... but at that point you're half way to writing an interpreter
anyway.
It's the shell's responsibility to decide what semantics to present to
the user, I'm just saying that the process of turning a code snippet
into an executable is fast and should not be a barrier.
If bash took 0.5 seconds to execute anything, I wouldn't use it.
If it were something that I used infrequently, I'd tolerate that.
I think it's considerably less than 0.5 seconds for many small programs.
dmd is surprisingly fast at rummaging through files, in fact so fast
that I discovered that an intricate caching scheme I'd implemented in
rdmd yielded no detectable improvement. Note that this is under Linux,
which creates new processes way faster than Windows, so take this with a
grain of salt.
I don't have the time to read this but I vaguely recall it might be
related:
http://members.shaw.ca/burton-radons/The%20Joy%20and%20Gibbering%20Terror%20of%20Custom-Loading%20Executables.html
Andrei
