Re: Debugger Rant

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com>]

Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:

> (And yes, every time when I work with debugger I feel myself as I have a revolver
> in my hand -:)

ROTFL!  But I tend to feel that using a debugger is more like using a 
bazooka or a hand grenade.  It can do the job but it is hell on the 
spectators.  You can make lots of changes with a debugger that the Ada 
compiler will prevent you from making.  If you know what you are doing, 
and can mentally track the effects of your changes, including through 
compiler optimizations, great.

But I am not that smart, and I tend to suspect that no one else is either.

If you use a debugger as a tool to steer around a program so you can 
figure out what is going on, then make changes and recompile, that is 
better.

But what I/we are advocating is that you write software that is 
demonstratably correct and demonstrates that it meets all the 
requirements.  In other words Marc sees as a 'normal' use of the 
debugger, I see as a requirements definition failure.  You may get me to 
sign off on a design where a debugger is required to demonstrate certain 
requirements.  But only after slogging through several days of 
requirements analysis--and then I will go home and think about it some 
more.  Coverage analysis tools, expecially on secure software are a very 
different story.  But I will still protest coverage that can only be 
demonstrated using a debugger.(It depends on how much code is involved 
in the debugger demonstration, and how much needs to be mangled by the 
debugger.  I still much prefer object code inspection in many cases.)



-- 

                                                        Robert I. Eachus

�In an ally, considerations of house, clan, planet, race are 
insignificant beside two prime questions, which are: 1. Can he shoot? 2. 
Will he aim at your enemy?� -- from the Laiden novels by Sharon Lee and 
Steve Miller.