4 ms·

Did you notice a) that the ticket is closed, and b) it was a bad ticket to begin with? See this comment in there: https://github.com/red/red/issues/3412#issueco

Did you notice a) that the ticket is closed, and b) it was a bad ticket to begin with? See this comment in there: https://github.com/red/red/issues/3412#issuecomment-395951364 https://github.com/red/red/issues/3412#issuecomment-39595136... Yes, if you rebuild the runtime when you compile, it's slow. If you use dev mode, because you're not changing anything in the runtime, it's fast.

svnpenn 5y ago
Did you notice, that pretty much every single major language today offers static compile? C, Go, Rust, D, Nim. Why does Red think its special to not offer a static compile?
- greggirwin 5y ago
  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 https://www.red-lang.org/2017/03/062-libred-and-macros.html (please note the Excel+Red Pong demo)
  - svnpenn 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        and people who want static compile have to wait 30 seconds to recompile, even if its one line code change
        em-bee 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        why do you need a dynamic build after every change?
        exikyut 5y ago
        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.

svnpenn 5y ago

Did you notice, that pretty much every single major language today offers static compile? C, Go, Rust, D, Nim. Why does Red think its special to not offer a static compile?

greggirwin 5y ago
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 https://www.red-lang.org/2017/03/062-libred-and-macros.html (please note the Excel+Red Pong demo)
- svnpenn 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      and people who want static compile have to wait 30 seconds to recompile, even if its one line code change
      - em-bee 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        why do you need a dynamic build after every change?
        exikyut 5y ago
        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.