On Sat, October 15, 2011 19:56, Andrew Pennebaker wrote: . . > No debugger at hand? An interpreter *is* a debugger.
No, not with InstantFPC (even if I should consider InstantFPC an interpreter which it isn't). Interpreters don't provide real debugging support (stepping through the code line by line, watching content of used variables, etc.) automatically (i.e. you may only get these features if a debugging support is added to the interpreter directly or provided as an add-on together with the interpreter - certainly not something given). . . > Yes, software bloat is to be avoided. In the simplest terms, I'm asking > for > fpc to consider shebangs as comments. That little syntactical addition > wouldn't bloat fpc by much at all, but it would allow the same code to be > compiled by fans of fpc, and interpreted by fans of instantfpc. > > The current situation forces coders to decide "I'm going to write compiled > code" or "I'm going to write interpreted code." That's kind of sad, > because > when you do want to use fpc, you don't want to go through a friend's code > and manually remove his shebangs. By adding shebang comments, fpc would be > able to run instantfpc programs. This feature unites programmers, it > doesn't > divide them. . . What's wrong with my suggestion to use instantfpc for compilation too if you need to use the same file both for compilation and direct execution? Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
