3 ms·
I prefer the dynamic langs for their "compile" (maybe more accurately "interpret") speed. It helps to keep short change-recompile-reload-check loops during deve
by cies 5y ago
I prefer the dynamic langs for their "compile" (maybe more accurately "interpret") speed. It helps to keep short change-recompile-reload-check loops during development.
- gmfawcett 5y agoI write a lot of Python, and I mostly agree. But some languages have fast compilers (like Nim and Go), or fast compilers and fast interpreters (like OCaml). Last night I was playing with an OCaml Web framework called Dream [1]. The change-recompile-reload loops were fast enough that I never had to wait. (OCaml supports separate / incremental compilation, so the benefits tend to scale on larger projects.) It's not a silver bullet, but it might slightly change your mind about why you like dynamic languages. :) [1] https://aantron.github.io/dream/ https://aantron.github.io/dream/
- cies 5y agoYes I know OCaml compiles fast enough, and lets not forget Elm! Also very fast compiling. But I find those two a little on the less featurefull side. I think by the time typeclasses are in things get slow really fast. It's features like that, that just add a lot of complexity at compile time. Just had a look at Dream. Good to see httpaf AND mirage (microkernel) targets! And it allows coding in Reason/Melange, which I find a very nice syntax especially for server-side code. Thanks for mentioning.