5 ms·
What's wrong with that? All else being equal, compiling will generally be faster. Most languages (Python, Java, Ruby, most Common Lisps, etc) do compile - just
by smanek 18y ago
What's wrong with that? All else being equal, compiling will generally be faster. Most languages (Python, Java, Ruby, most Common Lisps, etc) do compile - just (usually) to some intermediate and portable bytecode rather than raw machine code. That's probably what their compiler (Wasabi) does too (except, it seems like they are using PHP/VBScript/JS as their bytecode ;-)).
- spolsky 18y agoIn FogBugz 6 the compiler output was PHP and VBScript. In FogBugz 7 the compiler output is .NET/CLR bytecodes. It also emits compressed JavaScript which runs on the browser.
- blasdel 18y agoYou should write a new article about Wasabi as it is now, so we can stop making fun of you for it.
- smanek 18y agoSounds good. But, there is nothing wrong with using some other language as your intermediate 'bytecode.' If memory serves, early versions of C++ compiled to C, Arc (basically) compiles to Scheme, Python can compile to C, and many others. Either way is good in my mind. But, I too, would appreciate some technical details about Wasabi (just out of academic curiosity). I feel like a lot of things I know about it are now outdated.
- mynameishere 18y agoI hate explaining myself, especially when it shouldn't be necessary. Yes, I know Java et al compiles to bytecode. But in practice you never hit a "compile" button because it compiles continuously.
- silentOpen 18y agoJava still has javac. I suppose an IDE could hide this from you. Of course, Java also has lots of static analysis tools written for it so many errors are caught way before compilation.
- mynameishere 18y agoThere's no supposing about it. All major IDEs do incremental builds and no one needs "actual, regular, compile processes" as with a command line compiler.