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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ddc669e8cf09b24 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-18 12:52:46 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F185001.8010002@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Debugger Rant References: <254c16a.0307110505.463b1cc0@posting.google.com> <3F148F80.1000708@attbi.com> <254c16a.0307161124.633c9245@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.71.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1058557962 66.31.71.243 (Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:52:42 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:52:42 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:52:46 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40484 Date: 2003-07-18T19:52:46+00:00 List-Id: 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.