3 ms·
That’s not the distinction I’m making: my CL workflow is to always start from a clean image that has been restored from source control (although, I think the id
by fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
That’s not the distinction I’m making: my CL workflow is to always start from a clean image that has been restored from source control (although, I think the ideal here is a system like Pharo that integrates VC into the image itself). What I mean is that Scheme users seem to have a workflow that’s more along the lines of what people do in Python, Ruby or JS, running the interpreter/compiler as a “batch” process whereas CL/Clojure/Smalltalk pursue a more interactive development experience.
- fulafel 5y agoPython devs use both styles depending on preferences and app type, IME. The notebook tooling is also great for sharing already set up REPL environments with state.
- fiddlerwoaroof 5y agoSort of: when I wrote a lot of Python, I used REPLs pretty heavily and I’ve also used notebooks a bit. The issue is that Python isn’t designed in a principled fashion for interactive development: reloading imports and other objects doesn’t always work the way you’d expect.
- fulafel 5y agoReloading cross depending modules with identical semantics (vs aappcold startup) is just as fraught in other languages I think. Upgrading existing instances of objects is a bit more automatic in some but then results in surprises and bugs if not anticipated in code.