On 14 July 2014 07:22, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 14 July 2014 15:58, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 14 July 2014 06:19, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> > I finally watched it (I failed to survive the long over-nighters until
>> > 10am
>> > to watch this one live >_<).
>> >
>> > I want to offer congratulation and thanks to Iain for this work!
>> > For me, this is perhaps the single most important work in the D
>> > ecosystem
>> > yet this year, and for me, I think the debugging environment remains the
>> > single most significant hurdle to confident and practical adoption of D
>> > in
>> > industry.
>> >
>> Thanks Manu.  I guess I'll be having trouble finding the next most
>> important work in the D ecosystem next year. ;)
> I think you've probably earned a break ;)
>> > It brings me to the interesting realisation (which I already knew, I
>> > have
>> > just been denying), that for D to proceed on Windows, MSVC will have to
>> > go... and I don't know how to go about this :/
>> > MS's debugger will presumably never support these features, but the de
>> > facto
>> > Windows toolchain emit's PDB for use with the MS tools. I wonder if
>> > there
>> > are competing debuggers that support PDB which could support unofficial
>> > extensions to PDB which may express D better?
>> >
>> Zerobugs was aimed at D users back when it was a commercial product.
>> It has since been released under a boost licensed for a couple years
>> now, but has into gone into obscurity (I think?).
>> Link: http://zerobugs.codeplex.com
>> Couple of clones on github too: https://github.com/search?q=zerobugs
>> Being written against GTK, it's UI should be cross-platform to
>> Windows, so it *could* be a good base project to start from, then
>> build Windows debugging support into it.  Someone else will need to do
>> initial reviewing and triaging of this stuff (we need a new
>> Lieutenant!)
> On the back of your work, what advantage would that debugger have over
> established and more refined tools?

I've never used zerobugs, but it looked interesting a few years back,
but didn't think it worth the money (actually, I seldom purchase
software) in comparison to FOSS.

> What would a 'D debugger' have to offer when the debug backend understands D
> internally, and can even handle D expression evaluation?

I think the experience is simply more natural to the end user.  You
code in D, you debug in D.  I do it all the time for C++ when I'm
probing for a problem in gdc.  Copying a line of code and pasting it
into the command prompt, checking the result.  It's one of these
features that I never noticed until I started doing this work in gdb.
*Then* I realised that I would have to implement a ground-up
interpreter for D.

Luckily GDB has awesome support for many language concepts, both in
functional and procedural languages.  So most of the work was just
extending existing opcodes to behave in a D-like manor. ;-)


Reply via email to