Am 15.10.2011 19:21, schrieb Ralf A. Quint: > At 09:30 AM 10/15/2011, Andrew Pennebaker wrote: >> Indeed, compiled programs will always run faster than interpreted >> programs. The value in scripting is that an interpreted environment >> allows coders to rapidly go through write code / test code loops. >> Interpreters let you explore your own codebase, like gdb but far more >> powerful. > > Sorry, but you might have to learn proper software development skills... > And learn to use the right tool for a task. Scripting tools/languages > have their purpose, compiled languages/environments have theirs. > Forcing some clutches of some scripting languages onto a compiled > language just doesn't make sense, you are just promoting software bloat > at it's best. Why use a multi-megabyte compiler to shuffle around more > megabytes of data to compile a more or less small script each time it is > run instead of using a more appropriate and efficient tool...
Like? Something funny (of course instantfpc cashes but even when compiling it takes only twice the time of bash and as soon as a script is cached, instantfpc beats bash each time by the factor of two): $ time bash ./test.sh Hello world real 0m0.049s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.020s $ time instantfpc test.pp Hello world real 0m0.027s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.030s _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
