Very real concerns, Dave. Yep, I code js the same way, and use anonymous
functions all over the place. There are some places where you're right, you
need a debug anchor to make a deep function line breakable. The standard way
of defining method, as you describe, though works fine in VWD. So yes, I've
learned to live with the fact that if I want to step through some functions,
I need to place a debug anchor method call at the beginning...
For example:
test = Class.create();
test.prototype = {
initialize: function() {
//lines in here are breakpoint enabled
},
test: function() {
//same with this function
},
test2: function() {
var someArray = [1,2,3,4,5];
someArray.each(function(num) {
//trying to place a breakpoint in here results in the script
breaking no within the anonymous function, but at the point the .each()
method is called
});
}
}
So, the way to be able to step through those types of functions is to have
some generic empty method at a higher level (global is fine), place a
breakpoint within it, then call that function from within the anonymous
function you want to step through...
function AnonymousDebug() {
//place breakpoint on this line
}
...within test2() from the example above...
someArray.each(function(num) {
AnonymousDebug();
//when it breaks within that anchor function, you can then hit F11
to step into this function
});
So, as mentioned, 'tis not ideal, but you can workaround things. As I
understand, the script debugging facilities shipping with the next version
("Orcas") handles anonymous debugging much better.
The question was, "what's the best tool available for free to debug js in
IE".... VWD is it, and this is how... :-)
Oh, also, while debugging, in VWD you can go to "Debug > Windows > Script
Explorer" to see the list of currently loaded script, including eval'ed
code, which you can use to place breakpoints in and step through, which is
something firebug doesn't let you do. So, right now, it's a trade off for
sure.
On 6/20/07, Dave Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Good point - I've seen the express vis studio editions, didn't make the
> connection. It's a pretty big download/install for a debugger, but hard
> disks
> and bandwidth are cheap these days, I guess!
>
> I'm currently using the Script Editor that comes with FrontPage 2003 (same
> thing that ships with VS 2003, I think? I hasten to add that I don't use
> Front Page for anything else, it's just the cheapest route to getting the
> script editor that I knew of!).
>
> Anyway, the one thing that really limits script editor's usefulness to me
> (and
> the freebie debugger is the same in this respect) is that the
> breakpoint-setter doesn't understand inline function definitions, e.g.
>
> 01 function blah(){
> 02 new Ajax.Request(
> 03 myURL,
> 04 { method: "POST",
> 05 onComplete:function(xhr){
> 06 var responseObj=Object.toJSON(xher.responseText);
> 07 doSomething(responseObj.this);
> 08 doSomethingElse(responseObj.that);
> 09 }
> 10 }
> 11 );
> 12 }
>
> stopping me from setting breakpoints on lines 6-8 interactively, which, in
> an
> Ajax app, is usually where a lot of the interesting stuff is going on.
> Worse,
> when I define a JS object type using Class.create() and the
> MyObjectType.prototype={ } approach, every method of the object is an
> inline
> function declaration, hence inaccessible to the debugger's breakpoint
> mechanism. The whole P&S coding style is geared around inline functions,
> and
> not for trivial, stylistic reasons either. That functional-style
> programming
> approach has a very natural fit to JS as a language, and I'd be loath to
> give
> it up these days.
>
> I can add a "debugger;" statement to my code within lines 6-8 and reload
> the
> app, but that's kind of tedious and defeats the immediacy of the
> interactive
> debugger. I could also stop defining functions inline, and pass references
> to
> top-level functions, but that would make my code look like death warmed
> up.
>
> OK, this is starting to sound like a rant - I'm not venting my spleen at
> you,
> Ryan. You've got the VWD installed already, and say you like it. Does the
> VWD debugger understand inline function declarations in the way I've
> described (a basic prerequisite for being 'capable' IMO)? If so, I'll
> happily
> burden my machine with it's 300MB presence and abstain from saying rude
> things about MS tools for, ooh, a whole day at least.
>
> TIA
>
> Dave Crane
>
> On Wednesday 20 June 2007 15:02, Ryan Gahl wrote:
> > You can get VWD (Visual Web Developer) Express from MS for free, which
> is
> > basically VS pared down. That has excellent js debugging. Yes, I use
> > firebug all the time, and love it. But yes, the js bebugging in VWD is
> far
> > faster and more capable. I use firebug for FF dev, VWD for IE dev.
> >
> --
> Author: Prototype & Scriptaculous in Action, Ajax in Practice, Ajax in
> Action
>
> >
>
--
Ryan Gahl
Manager, Senior Software Engineer
Nth Penguin, LLC
http://www.nthpenguin.com
--
Architect
WebWidgetry.com / MashupStudio.com
Future Home of the World's First Complete Web Platform
--
Inquire: 1-262-951-6727
Blog: http://www.someElement.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
