On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:56 AM, john lunzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it is a mixture of amusing and sad that this thread has been met with crickets. I am not sad. These are exciting times. My mantra these days is "something good will come of this." This is a statement of intent, not an idiotic assertion of the universe's (provably false) benevolence :-) > Perhaps my only insight comes from another tool which has truly changed how I program. The pudb debugger has provided me insight into programs where again, previously I felt like I was drowning in a sea of code. I'm not sure if this is what you meant by the other side of the static code but being given a graphical representation of where I am in a program and the stack and what's happening to the variables has been very powerful to me. This is indeed what I meant. I'll look into pudb. It's all about tools, for me. I am giving myself permission to look 5, 10 or 20 years in the future. I *want* a project that will take that long. Sure, there are plenty of 1-day to 2-week projects that can be done in Leo. Instead, I am looking for a major new *kind* of tool, or a major re-imagining of an existing tool such as pudb. > I see code existing in three forms: static, live, results. You have shown us through outline's that static code can be represented in different ways and that those different representations can aid our understanding of the code. I've discussed the live aspect, which helps gain further understanding of the static code. The results of a program having ran (past tense) could provide great insight into how code works. That is, can unit tests be designed to provide insight into the static code rather than just a confirmation that your code is working as you expect it to? I believe the answer is yes, on a case by case basis. Perhaps a "juicier" question is, can unit tests be written/generated generically to provide insight into arbitrary static code. Thanks for these interesting thoughts and distinctions. I had not thought of the results as a separate entity before. Please don't disparage your abilities. Your comments come closest to what I have been thinking about. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
