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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,be6935f8bf92ebe7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: wfrye@mnsinc.com (William Frye)
Subject: Re: debugger debate (was: any research...)
Date: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <5jqfnt$era@news1.mnsinc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237292880
Distribution: inet
References: <9704221332.AA06103@most>
Organization: Monumental Network Systems
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) (wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM) wrote:
: > ... debuggers ... are hardly ever necessary if the code ia
: > properly designed.  Either the bug will not occur ... or it
: > will obviously be in module 'x' function 'y' .....
: > ... many programmers use a debugger to watch what their code is doing
: > as a replacement for understanding it.

: But those of us that congratulate ourselves for not needing a debugger
: most of the time can end up embarassed when we do need it and don't know
: how to operate it!  (Voice of experience...)
And, for maintenance programmers, understanding the design (specially
for code that isn't properly documented) is a luxury we may not be given.
Often a problem has to be fixed yesterday, so you plug away and pray.