Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects'

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <8a1g93$ijs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <38C3D03D.FD5D39D1@earthlink.net>,
>   Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > But one still needs debugging tools.
>
> Actually a lot of Ada programmers find that all they really
> need is a good symbolic back trace, and many people use a
> debugger only to obtain this information.

If the only bug under consideration is one that causes an exception, I
could see that. But I fail to see how that helps at all when the bug is
a behavioral or timing issue. Its true that the source of behavioral
bugs can usually be intuited by someone clever who knows all the code
involved intimately and takes the time to think it through. But in a
large project often there is just too much code involved for one person
to grok it all.

As for timing bugs (eg: this routine has 8ms to run, but takes 22),
trying to fix the problem without first using tools to locate it is a
damn good way to waste a lot of time and make a big mess.

As for me, give me all the tools available, and then some. Stack traces,
debuggers, profilers, timers, cpu monitors, data monitors. Love 'em all.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.