On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:55:49PM -0000, Hamlet D'Arcy wrote:
> >From listening to the conversation about debugging tools, it seems to me
> that the perspective of the list might be skewed. Print statements are great
> when you're debugging your own code or even someone else's code on small
> projects...
>
> But what about those times where you are handed a folder full of files and
> told either "we need this compiled!" or "find the memory leak!". Both of
> these happen to me quite regularly. (And I do realize that this is in a
> C/C++ context, but it could apply to Perl too).
>
> In these situations, an integrated visual debugger is far superior to print
> statements. Sure, you could create log files to reflect a sort of call
> stack, but all too often you will have to add the code yourself rather than
> having the original programmer use debug statements (or such). The same goes
> for listing variables. Want to know the value of every data member in a
> class? I'd prefer clicking the little plus sign and haveing the node expand
> rather than adding a print statement for each member (or set up a loop).
>
> I think an excellent example of a solid, stable, and friendly debugger is
> Metrowerk's Codewarrior's debugger. Call stack, view memory, watches,
> breakpoints, and the ability to alter which lines of code to run... I can
> state from experience that products developed using the Codewarrior Suite
> were brought to market faster and more stable than products developed using
> Borland TurboDebugger or command line tools.
>
> In conclusion, visual integrated debuggers are the best way to quickly
> acquire knowledge of a poorly known program. They give the user faster
> access to data and more debugging control.
Quite a nice way "in-between" way of doing things is to run a
command-line debugger (gdb or perl -d) under XEmacs. Nice and pretty.
-Dom
