Re: Baby X is bor nagain

On 30/06/2024 12:48, bart wrote:

On 30/06/2024 10:05, David Brown wrote:

On 29/06/2024 13:11, bart wrote:

 

>

If there was some elaborate checker for Python code, or you had an extensive test suite that executed all lines of the program to check you hadn't mispelled anything, I expect you wouldn't to run those after every minor edit.
>

>
No, not after every edit.  But then, I don't compile my C code after every edit.  It depends on the size and type of the edit.  Some checks - such as for misspelling - /are/ done continuously during editing, at least to some extent.  A decent IDE or editor will help there.

  An IDE or editor which presumably uses some fast aspects of fast compilation to give you real-time feedback.
 

There's no compilation involved - there is some code analysis for syntax highlighting, identifying types (and therefore things like struct members), structure analysis, and so on.

I don't use such smart tools and so rely on such feedback from the compiler.
 

I prefer to use the best tools available.  I might use a simple editor for remote (ssh) work for minor tasks, but editors which do reasonable highlighting are common and easily available.

Many edits to my source code (I realised this last night) consist of commenting or uncommenting one line of code, eg. that may call or not call some routine, or changing some internal flag to enable something or other, eg. to show extra diagnostics. Or inserting or removing an early return. Or adding or removing or commenting out some diagnostic print statements.
 This is not working on the logic of some complex algorithm. It's changing something on a whim (maybe calling that fixup routine or not) and needing instant feedback. Here I don't need any deep analysis!
 If compilation took a minute, then I might have to use command-line options instead of editing an internal flag or using commenting. I might need to use (or develop) a debugger to avoid recompiling. I'd have to revert (in my language) to independent compilation so I'd only need to compile a small part after any change.
 I'd have to use some smart editor to tell me things quicker than a compiler would (if such an editor understood my language).
 This does not sound appealing. More like going back decades.
 

I really think you have everything backwards.  Decades ago, I used the kind of editors you say you use, before I had access to better choices. (At one time, I paid quite a bit of money for a good editor.)

Perhaps you can understand better why more-or-less instant compilation can be a useful thing, it eliminates the need for those cumbersome external solutions, and it keeps my own tools simple.
 

No, I can't.

It opens up possibilities.
 

It opens possibilities for doing lots more manual work, making more mistakes, finding those mistakes later, and generally working in a way most people were glad to move away from a generation ago.
Fast compilation is fine and good in itself.  And I can understand feeling that giant IDE's like Eclipse or MS Code are bigger than you want, and take time to learn.  But it is incomprehensible to me that you'd /want/ to use such limited tools as you do.

 

That is what gcc is like to me. There is no fluency. YMMV.

>
It is possible to have your cake and eat it.  You think this is all a binary choice - it is not.  You can have smooth and fluent development /and/ powerful checking /and/ efficient generated code /and/ full-featured tools.

 And you could have C development that works just like Python (well, minus its bundled libraries).

I would prefer Python development that worked as well as my C development.