dope99

I’m not arguing here but honestly don’t know: how can interpretation be faster than the checking step of compilation? Maybe code generation takes more time, but Rust has ‘cargo check’ which only typechecks.

Parsing is basically a wash between compilation and interpretation. Dynamic types still need to be resolved for the tests to run. So why would interpretation be faster?

I’m working through a compiler book and would love to know.

Ah, so you are referring to Haskell.

I think most bugs are that kind that the compiler can catch. But yes absolutely a program can compile and be dead wrong. I’m writing a regex engine and lol at types saving me from all the mistakes I can make with building and transforming finite automata.

I’d still much rather have a slightly slow compilation than verify types in my head every time I’m in that area of code, or writing unit tests for every configuration of code which basically just validate I haven’t returned any nulls.

Typed compilation may take time, but it results in faster running programs. And unit tests also take time. I find the errors generated by a type checker come quicker and give more useful diagnostics for deep areas of the code.

Can you support when this trade off ought to go one way or the other with any objectivity?

Just curious. I’m learning about compilers and would be interested in which compilers most make the trade-off in favor of optimal code generation over compilation speed.