Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5rumo$j4ru$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:47:35 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 92 Message-ID: <v5rumo$j4ru$1@dont-email.me> References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v53i4s$33k73$2@dont-email.me> <v53lf7$34huc$1@dont-email.me> <v53vh6$368vf$1@dont-email.me> <v54se1$3bqsk$1@dont-email.me> <20240624160941.0000646a@yahoo.com> <v5bu5r$va3a$1@dont-email.me> <20240624181006.00003b94@yahoo.com> <v5c86d$11ac7$1@dont-email.me> <JEheO.108086$ED9b.74955@fx11.iad> <v5cblg$11q0j$1@dont-email.me> <gEieO.108089$ED9b.25598@fx11.iad> <20240625113616.000075e0@yahoo.com> <mUzeO.141609$Cqra.55051@fx10.iad> <v5elql$1jmii$1@dont-email.me> <m3BeO.24907$Gurd.16179@fx34.iad> <v5empd$1jndv$2@dont-email.me> <v5eph4$1k6a9$1@dont-email.me> <87ed8jnbmf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5jhls$2m7np$1@dont-email.me> <v5jm32$2nqvp$1@dont-email.me> <v5k3v2$2qllm$1@dont-email.me> <v5kfst$2svt3$1@dont-email.me> <v5kmlm$2u918$1@dont-email.me> <20240627201830.854@kylheku.com> <v5m2nl$39qob$3@dont-email.me> <v5ohno$3rjfp$1@dont-email.me> <v5oq5o$3srp8$1@dont-email.me> <v5r75b$es9v$1@dont-email.me> <v5rd69$g046$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:47:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a67f68932af5dd7fc1572c8c71e0fe76"; logging-data="627582"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19G1v0msa9QNoWv26LYoyEBwi/8GQPqCPc=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 Cancel-Lock: sha1:goHAtYV/ZyudFTtoDzn84nEmsgE= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v5rd69$g046$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5906 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.