<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 1, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Olwe Melwasul wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">But then I've heard people from PLT/Racket downplaying the whole dynamic feeding of a REPL.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>The repl is an invaluable tool for exploring ideas. Think of it as a sketchpad. I would not want to live without it. </div><div><br></div><div>When it comes to building and linking the pieces of a large program, the REPL is still a fantastic tool. </div><div><br></div><div>It does fall short when you use it to patch large programs with haphazard loading of definitions and expressions. As they used to say about types, it takes a strong mind to live without transparency and I don't think I have it (all the time). So that's why DrRacket comes with a transparent REPL not an opaque one. </div><div><br></div><div>-- Matthias</div><div><br></div></body></html>