From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Chad  R. Meiners" <chad.rmeiners@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
Date: 14 Apr 2007 12:28:50 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1176578930.062156.49570@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
   <zyBSh.44138$oV.14776@attbi_s21>
   <461B52A6.20102@obry.net>
   <awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <461BA892.3090002@obry.net>
   <yeabxgnsrj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
   <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
   <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.176.139.218
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1176578930 3019 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2007 19:28:50
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:28:50 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.176.139.218;
   posting-account=paoWPg0AAABe-C1bfTlsEbfoc5yNqKFn
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15017
Date: 2007-04-14T12:28:50-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Apr 11, 5:40 am, Jean-Pierre Rosen <r...@adalog.fr> wrote:
> Chad R. Meiners a =E9crit :> I disagree. Sometimes trace messages add lin=
e noise and maintaince
> > requirements to the code base,
>
> Huh?
> Trace messages are put just to check an hypothesis, and removed
> immediately afterwards. Certainly not kept in configuration, and limited
> to a couple of lines!

I always keep important hypothesis (trace statements) around during
development because a particular trace sequence for a particular bug
does not ensure full coverage of the the algorithm.  I have needed the
same trace statement more than once at different times in some
software life cycles.

> > and it is much easier to trace through
> > the algorithm step by step (using conditional breaks when necessary).
>
> My experience is that recompiling (generally a single body where you
> added the trace) is much faster than starting the debugger, setting
> breakpoints, skipping lots of unnecessary breaks, and so on.

And my experience is that starting a debugger is faster than inserting
some verbose trace statements, and then recompiling.  If you are
skipping a lot of unnecessary breaks, you are not using the debugger
properly.

> Moreover, a trace message gives you exactly the information you need,
> while interpreting a particular (complicated) structure from a debugger
> is generally quite difficult. Did you ever try to understand an ASIS
> "Element" ?

I completely agree.  For <b>some</b> cases, traces messages provide
the right information in the most efficient and effective way.
However, I do not accept that trace messages are <b>always</b> a
better way to find bugs than using a debugger.