Anonymous user
Talk:Native shebang: Difference between revisions
→What is this task asking for?: I still don't understand
(→Problems: new section) |
(→What is this task asking for?: I still don't understand) |
||
Line 5:
./myprgm.cpp</pre>
:At which point <tt>run_cpp_file</tt> (originally written in C++) is called to compile and run <tt>myprgm.cpp</tt>. I personally think this is abusing the purpose of a shebang; languages that aren't compiled to some binary form before being run, such as Ruby or Perl already have existing suitable shebang mechanisms (this is even mentioned as a "difficulty": "Naturally, some languages are not compiled. These languages are forced to use shebang executables from another language, eg "#!/usr/bin/env python""). Languages compiled to a binary form, on the other hand, would more naturally use Makefiles and similar to accomplish the same kind of thing, that is "run with one or two simple commands". [[User:Lue|Lue]] ([[User talk:Lue|talk]]) 02:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
::That still doesn't answer my central point: In what way does a Python program that starts with:
::<lang python>#!/usr/bin/python</lang>
::not ''totally'' answer this task? The task description seems to imply that it doesn't, but I don't understand what it means. Do ''not'' answer by talking about languages that normally have a separate compilation step, as that doesn't help to clear up the confusion; state '''''clearly''''' with reference to Python or one of the large number of other languages for which this is possible. (My hunch is that this is all something that doesn't make sense outside the scope of maybe one or two languages. A program is a program! What's more, the line between interpreted and compiled is ''very'' blurry.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 17:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
== Problems ==
| |||