<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">How do you write scripts? With a text editor? Then you don't have a debugger at hand, no syntax highlighting, etc. And this lets you write code quick? Not for me.</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There may be a language barrier here. When I say "text editor", I mean something like vi, Emacs, TextMate, Eclipse. Syntax highlighting and code completion are often a given.</div>
<div><br></div><div>No debugger at hand? An interpreter <i>is</i> a debugger.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Sorry, but you might have to learn proper software development skills...</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>The final result of a project may be compiled code, but that doesn't mean we are restricted from using an interpreted environment to develop that code. You can use the same tools + an interpreter. That's an extra tool for software development, not the only one. If you don't like using instantfpc, you don't have to. But if you do, it would be nice if fpc played nicely with instantfpc-enabled code.<div>
<br></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Scripting tools/languages have their purpose, compiled languages/environments have theirs.</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Aye, scripting language and compiled languages often serve different purposes, but that doesn't mean they have to. You can write shell scripts in Haskell and compile executables in Ruby. Interpreted languages compile code in the background, so the difference is superficial.</div>
<div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">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.</span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.<div>
<div><br></div>Cheers,<div><br></div><div>Andrew Pennebaker</div><div><a href="http://www.yellosoft.us" target="_blank">www.yellosoft.us</a></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ralf A. Quint <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:FreeDOS@gmx.net">FreeDOS@gmx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">At 09:30 AM 10/15/2011, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Sorry, but you might have to learn proper software development skills...<br>
And learn to use the right tool for a task. Scripting tools/languages have their purpose, compiled languages/environments have theirs.<br>
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...<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Finally, adding scripting capability to a programming language allows coders to use a language to be used for shell scripts. If you love Pascal, you might want to write sysadmin tools in Pascal to automate your workflow.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Actually I do, and that all without the whole shebang...<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Ralf <br></font><div><div></div><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
fpc-pascal maillist - <a href="mailto:fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org" target="_blank">fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal" target="_blank">http://lists.freepascal.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>