3 ms·
>I've seen various attempts of this over the years, but quickly your code becomes more complex than the computer can run while you type and you fall back to run
by stackghost 2mo ago
>I've seen various attempts of this over the years, but quickly your code becomes more complex than the computer can run while you type and you fall back to running most of the tests after in some way.
That does not match my experience with lisp.
- jottinger 2mo agoMine, either.
- bluGill 2mo agoMy last experience with lisp was assignments in college which are too small to count as anything more than a toy problem. For real world code in other languages I've worked with the complexity of the problems demands so much code that the REPL cannot keep up.
- Zak 2mo ago> the complexity of the problems demands so much code that the REPL cannot keep up. Now we disagree, at least in part. REPL-driven development is in part about incrementalism. You wouldn't run all the complex code every time you want to examine some state or try out an experiment. You would run it once at the start of your session, then compile just the definition you're editing with your editor's equivalent of `compile-defun`. Of course that breaks if you're making changes that touch a bunch of different areas of your program and require rebuilding all the state, but it's usually a mistake to design programs in a way that would make such an issue frequent.