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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!193.201.147.84.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer0.kpn.DE!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
   <zyBSh.44138$oV.14776@attbi_s21>   <461B52A6.20102@obry.net>
   <awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>   <461BA892.3090002@obry.net>
   <yeabxgnsrj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>   <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
   <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <1176578930.062156.49570@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
 <hddvve.0qg.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:18:00 +0200
Message-ID: <1xmwpxxp7lcfv$.7zeb5r7mknaz.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Apr 2007 11:18:00 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7bece8de.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=1alEi`dZRk>T2Rfi6<W9f5A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;3<mD[c8leE2[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4IXm65S@:3>?5fBESnY8^6?
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15056
Date: 2007-04-16T11:18:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:50:49 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:

> Chad R. Meiners a �crit :

>> 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.
> OK, take a typical example (of what I am doing, YMMV). In an ASIS 
> program (AdaControl of course), I have a failure due to an 
> "inappropriate element" to a given call, that I can easily identify from 
> the stack trace. That place is called very often, just once in a while 
> is the parameter incorrect. With a trace, I just have to read the last 
> message befor the failure.

That reminds me early days. That time there existed debuggers executing
(assembly) program backwards. That would be an equivalent to tracing.

(I think it is obvious that tracing is far more powerful but also much less
comfortable than conventional debuggers.)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de