Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Teddy
You realize that a script like this compiles in about 2 seconds on a sub-par machine, right? Pressing "F5" doesn't seem that difficult.
|
And I realize that I've done little projects like this hundreds of times and big projects that are suited to compiled languages and my judgement is that I wouldn't generally use a compiled language to do a little job like this.
It's not that you can't, it's just not the right tool for the job. The extra compilation phase is just one reason. Sure, a newbie *might* get lucky and not screw up configuring the compiler, but it's also possible s/he'd spend hours sifting through documentation. Interpreted languages aren't immune to this either, but my experience has been it's a more frequent problem with compiled languages, and the reason is that there's more configuration you have to do with a compiled language that brings you no benefit in a project like this.
Further, few of the benefits of compiled languages apply here. C# is statically bound, and that would give me no benefit in this case. I don't need to be able to generate a library or make a GUI or any of that stuff, so I get no benefit from that. All the complexity that comes with an IDE gives me no benefit.
This guy wants to write a script, see what errors come up, fix his code and try again. That mode of development is the classic model for using an interpreted language. This isn't a criticism of compiled languages any more than saying I'd rather not use a monkey wrench to remove an ingrown hair is a criticism of monkey wrenches.