|
|
|
|
|
by lispm
3222 days ago
|
|
> Thats my point is that the REPL case of using Emacs to run and evaluate your code is almost hardly different than letting an IDE run your unit test. With Java this evident because the IDE compiles incrementally and the debugger can hot code swap. Using a REPL vs. an IDE like you describe is the difference between a conversation and sending somebody a letter with instructions. This is more visible when we use more dynamic languages/runtimes than Java/JVM. Since the changes one can do and how they need to be done is not very advanced, the usefulness of a REPL is reduced. |
|
> Using a REPL vs. an IDE like you describe is the difference between a conversation and sending somebody a letter with instructions.
Hmmm an IDE is supposed to be a REPL and more. I mean you can go look up the definition from wikipedia.
> This is more visible when we use more dynamic languages/runtimes than Java/JVM. Since the changes one can do and how they need to be done is not very advanced, the usefulness of a REPL is reduced.
Yes I completely agree as I mentioned dynamic languages are far easier to modify at runtime. However for the case with Java it can be done with JRebel and various other tools.
Furthermore going back to the whole conversation vs letter an IDE with a powerful debugger will let you evaluate expressions based on a state that is stuck... ie setting breakpoint (as well of course as investigating current variables and such). This is damn useful for dealing with a multithreaded environment.
By the way make no mistake... I do love Lisp... I just think there are better things than traditional REPLs considering to your other point in another thread this stuff has existed since the 70s.