3 ms·
> Yes, I've done that quite a few times too. No, neither have. You misunderstand the algorithm suggested. Even if you had 0 bugs, you're still going through th
by jack9 9y ago
> Yes, I've done that quite a few times too.
No, neither have. You misunderstand the algorithm suggested. Even if you had 0 bugs, you're still going through the process described. The overwhelmingly common case you then describe:
> When I'm done, it generally compiles and runs fine after about 20 minutes of fixing silly bugs.
How is this not exactly what the article describes?
> Programming is a long slog of trial and error, where the length of the trial and the
> severity of the error depend heavily on the domain and the tooling.
- gravypod 9y agoThis article describes live programming which is something that dates back to some of the older programmers. It's a common methodology that crops up often. It's not about the number of times it takes you to run something or finding spelling errors. Fixing spelling errors still counts as "running the first time" as long as you're not changing the structure of the code. This article describes the idea of an interactive programming environment with a single language for all problems. This method of development, as described in this article, is very common in industry but not very productive. It is still lot of trial and error and in that same time I can be doing something that I know I will do correctly.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoNote that isn’t the meaning of live programming, at least according to the definition laid out in Chris Hancock’s 2004 dissertation where he introduces the word. Of course, other definitions have been created to include more conventional programming practices (e.g. in Lisp and Smalltalk) or performance oriented live coding, but we are all talking about significantly different things at that point.