Quick scala experimenting in emacs

Sometimes it is very handy to do a quick coding session in some scripting language - when experimenting with new language feature, trying out some idea or just throwing together some math. Until recently, there was no way to use Scala for this. While it had script execution feature, it was very slow - could take several seconds on each script restart. This happened because you had to load and initialize scala compiler every time - and it's not a small beast.
Somewhere between 2.9 and 2.11, situation changed to better - now, instead of tearing compiler up and down, "scala script.scala" silently starts a compile server in the background, and subsequent scripts are sent to it, cutting down script execution time to less than a second.
It would get even better if there was a way to run the script directly from my emacs session, without going to terminal. Turns out, it's easy to do. Just place the following function in your init.el:
(defun run-current-file ()
  "Execute the current file.
File suffix is used to determine what program to run.
If the file is modified, ask if you want to save first."
  (interactive)
  (let* (
         (suffixMap
          ;; ("extension" . "shell program name")
          `(
            ("scala" . "scala")
            ("rb" . "ruby")
            ))
         (fName (buffer-file-name))
         (fSuffix (file-name-extension fName))
         (progName (cdr (assoc fSuffix suffixMap)))
         (cmdStr (concat progName " \""   fName "\"")))

    (when (buffer-modified-p)
      (when (y-or-n-p "Buffer modified. Do you want to save first?")
        (save-buffer)))

    (if (string-equal fSuffix "el") ; special case for emacs lisp
        (load fName)
      (if progName
          (progn
            (message "Running…")
            (shell-command cmdStr "*run-current-file output*" ))
        (message "No recognized program file suffix for this file.")))))
Use "M-x run-current-file" or bind it to key combination of your choice.
This function runs the current buffer, using file extension to determine what program to use as a script engine - scala, elisp or ruby here, but it should be easy to extend this to any other script runner.

Comments

  1. AnonymousFebruary 25, 2015 at 10:25 PM

    Good to see you again!

    Note that you can also test scripts in REPL -- a somewhat cheaper solution. It would need copy-pasting around though, closer to the point when you thing the script is alomost ready (or you're editing it).

    -- vasya novikov

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RogachFebruary 25, 2015 at 10:46 PM

      Hi! Good to hear from you!
      Essentially, this is almost the same - background compile server acts as a "hidden REPL", but without extra actions to select-copy-paste the script each time and without consuming valuable screen space.
      On the other hand, REPL also has :load - also eliminating problem with copy-paste, but still taking screen space.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to create your own simple 3D render engine in pure Java

Image
3D render engines that are nowdays used in games and multimedia production are breathtaking in complexity of mathematics and programming used. Results they produce are correspondingly stunning. Many developers may think that building even the simplest 3D application from scratch requires inhuman knowledge and effort, but thankfully that isn't always the case. Here I'd like to share with you how you can build your very own 3D render engine, fully capable of producing nice-looking 3D images. Why would you want to build a 3D engine? At the very least, it will really help understanding how real modern engines do their black magic. Also it is sometimes useful to add 3D rendering capabilities to your application without calling to huge external dependencies. In case of Java, that means that you can build 3D viewer app with zero dependencies (apart from Java...
Read more

Solving quadruple dependency injection problem in Angular

Angular comes with built-in dependency injection and module management system, but it can get a bit tedious to use when your project grows. Especially if you use RequireJS alongside it (a must for almost any project) and also want to be minification-safe with all those dependency injections. Let's look at a simple example with one module that provides a value and another module that prints that value: // answer.js define(["angular"], function(angular) { angular.module("the.answer") .value("TheAnswer", 42); }); // main.js define(["angular", "the.answer" ], function(angular) { angular.module("main", [ "the.answer" ]) .run([ "TheAnswer" , function( TheAnswer ) { console.log(TheAnswer); }]); }); As you can see, to provide a single dependency to my code, I had to specify it in four places (highlighted in red) - first as RequireJS dependency, then as Angular module dependency,...
Read more

Configuration objects in Scallop

It turned out that spreading type annotations throughout all the code in all places where options are requested is not a good idea. And, of course, it is prone to errors - who likes those type annotations? When using such option parsing libraries, users usually end up creating a big object with fields corresponding to each option: object Conf { var apples:Int = 0 var bananas:Int = 0 } // ... parsing options ... Conf.apples = parser.getOption("option name", ...) Conf.bananas = parser.getOption("other option name", ...) Sure, this works, and usually flexible enough - but why would anybody want to create such boilerplate? And by the way, nobody likes var's in their code :) So in Scallop , I needed to cut down that unnecessary repetition. There are several ways: Create a compiler plugin. The most powerful option. And the least enjoyable - even given the ease of installing a compiler plugin using sbt, I doubt that anybody will install compiler p...
Read more