Talk:Interactive programming (repl): Difference between revisions

→‎Interpreter or not?: A bit off-topic
(→‎Interpreter or not?: A bit off-topic)
Line 42:
::Hi Dmitry, some argue that programmer productivity is worth more than execution speed in most situations and in their eyes an interpreter may well be much more 'efficient' for them. Don't automatically equate efficiency with speed of execution - there can be other concerns. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 12:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Hi! Well, overall economic efficiency depends on many things, and software developing process plays the major role here. If you had to develop a certified software you would find that tighter modification - execution circle would become less efficient because it does not well fit into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-model V-model] with requirements of traceability, roles separation etc. On the opposite pole there is so-called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development TDD]. But that again does not very suited for interpreters, as you need to maintain a large base of tests, rather than test-as-you-type-and-forget. Further if we consider tools mounted above the code with languages of their own, I mean UML et al, we will find that present models of software development rather tend to deeply layered translations, than to direct interpretation. My take is that interpreters will survive as GUI, which brings us to back interactiveness. --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 13:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:I'm not saying we should use "CLI", I'm saying that the usage which makes "CLI" popular googlewise is "command-line interface", not "command-line interpreter", so "CLI" being popular is not an argument for "command-line interpreter" being an appropriate term. Also -- I suppose I should have just not mentioned inefficiency; it's irrelevant. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 11:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)