3 ms·
> that REPLs are a poor substitute for many static analysis tasks. Maybe I should have asked you what you use the REPLs of statically typed languages for. I a
by ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
> that REPLs are a poor substitute for many static analysis tasks.
Maybe I should have asked you what you use the REPLs of statically typed languages for.
I actually never used REPLs for that (neither in Python, CL, Clojurescript nor Elixir).
> That sounds nice, but it's too abstract to persuade IMHO.
Of course it is. I also didn't get it until I've tried it myself. That actually has been the main cause why I tried (Common) Lisp at all (well I had been using Emacs Lisp before, but that doesn't really count ;).
- FPGAhacker 5y agoI use repls a lot, both when I used clojure and now when I mainly use python. The reason for me is language exploration. I write my program and don’t always know how to do something and the internet is ambiguous. With a nice repl I can rapidly iterate trying different things and doing micro in-situ experiments to explore and understand how the language (or library more frequently) works. It’s very edifying.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> Maybe I should have asked you what you use the REPLs of statically typed languages for. I don't really use them, which is kind of my point. Once in a great while I'll do some quick testing in the rare case that using a REPL is actually faster than just running the program, but to even call that a marginal improvement in my quality of life would risk overemphasis.