Re: M-x compile for different file extensions

[Richard Stallman]

    1. There are many independent (small) programs which are
       not part of a big project and so there is no need for make file.

Isn't a makefile as good a way as any to specify the right commands
to use to compile them?

    2. We use the compile command on many type of files which are not
       real "programs" - shell scripts (run with arguments), sql queries,
       reports (printed by the `compile') and many, many others.

Ok, but if you do that, is it really the case that the command you want
to run follows from the current visited file?

    3. This makes it more easy to have a standard policy regarding saving
       places for "compilation" output. For example we have some local
       tool that work on *.pns files, our tool convert it to <name>.pnl
       our defined 

I don't quite understand this and how it relates to the issue.
Could you explain that?

    >     5. Run some commands with interactive input to them (when needed) in a
    >        compilation window, with an option to kill the compilation buffer.
    >        (`compile-commands', read the help carefully).
    > 
    > Why is this better than using a single shell command string, with `;'
    > and `sleep N' used as needed between the individual shell commands?

    This is really used for programs that use /dev/tty (and not standard
    input), for security (programs that need pass words) or dynamic
    answers. It also has the added advantage of running multiple processes,
    each with its own buffer and different name automatically. 

I don't see the connection--would you please explain?
These programs would relate to the other feature, having a way to send
input to the compilation process, but I don't see how they relate
to this feature.