[greggirwin]

So you're changing your argument now, that's fine.

Let's see. Java? Python? Ruby? JS? PHP? Any .NET lang?

Go is on the rise, yes. As is Rust. But D? Nim? Do you really consider those major languages?

Enough silly arguments though. We think it's special to offer options, because one size does not fit all, but we hope a common syntax can fit most. So you have the option to 1) use an external runtime, which makes all your EXEs tiny (say they run in a common system, even against a custom Red runtime you build); 2) compile to native code and get a single, no dependencies, EXE; 3) "encap" your code with the compiled runtime so you can leverage all dynamic features of Red, some of which can't be compiled; 4) compile the runtime so it can be accessed from other languages and environments. 5) Write in pure Red/System, which is basically like writing in C. Maximum control, no high level features. Tiny EXEs, no runtime, fast compilation.

- https://www.red-lang.org/2017/03/062-libred-and-macros.html (please note the Excel+Red Pong demo)

[svnpenn]

argument hasnt changed. Red requires a compile of the entire runtime every single time someone wants a static compile. Even if you change one line of code, that another 30 second wait

[9214]

Have your read p.1 in the message you are replying to? Red does not support static linking, that's true, but you can link to a dynamic runtime library instead, without slow recompilation times... or use the interpreter, or encap the script, or fallback on Red/System. There are options to compensate for the lack of your preferred workflow.

[svnpenn]

and people who want static compile have to wait 30 seconds to recompile, even if its one line code change

[em-bee]

EDIT: i just read up on this. only the first time the static build is slow. later rebuilds are fast. just like every c/c++ program. the first time it has to build everything, all following times it only needs to rebuild the parts that changed.

this has already been explained, and i am only repeating it here for the casual HN reader, so they can follow along.

old comment, that makes no sense because getting a fast static build isn't even a problem. left here because that is what was responded to:

why do you need a static build after every change? isn't a dynamic one sufficient for testing?

[svnpenn]

why do you need a dynamic build after every change?

[exikyut]

As someone naive to Red myself, I just read through the 5 different compile methods mentioned in the parent comment, and while that's quite a bit more than other languages offer, it seems to offer an interesting set of tradeoffs that balance the needs of different real-world scenarios against the language design.

It sounds like you're describing an edge case. To better understand it, what's the actual context around your requirement of static builds?

To be clear about my question, I am genuinely curious - perhaps there are workarounds that could be used, or optimizations that could be considered in the long term.

However (and critically), there is not nearly enough semantic detail in your arguments as currently presented for developers to potentially extract actionable work items from. This is why everyone else is annoyed.

[CRConrad]

So don't compile statically while in the dev phase, then switch and sacrifice one gigantic 30-second chunk of your life for release.

Any reason this wouldn't work?