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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,31b8879c52cdbc65
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com ()
Subject: Re: Gnat on OpenVMS
Date: 1999/05/24
Message-ID: <FC98rC.n4p@news.boeing.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 481645890
Sender: nickerson@mirage.boeing.com ()
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pundit.ds.boeing.com
References: <7hshfq$5tc$1@front1.grolier.fr> <FC3wGF.AFz@news.boeing.com>
 <7i6aur$i1g$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7i74fa$9e2$1@front6.grolier.fr>
 <1999May22.193351.1@eisner> <7i98qg$dhr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group / Software Systems
Reply-To: nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com ()
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <7i98qg$dhr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, 
Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
|>In article <1999May22.193351.1@eisner>,
|>  Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote:
|>
|>> There may be some economics at work here, as GDB folk are
|>> accustomed to moving readily between many operating systems so
|>> long as they are all some form of Unix.
|>
|>No, they don't need to be some form of Unix, GDB is being
|>used successfully on many non-Unix operating systems. Indeed
|>all my own personal work is on OS/2, where GDB works just fine.
|>
|>I think it is definitely true that people who move between many
|>targets prefer tools that are uniform across targets. We have
|>a couple of users of the VMS version who simply have a
|>requirement to produce a VMS version of their software, but
|>they also work on many other platforms. People in this position
|>are of course far happier to use GDB than the VMS debugger,
|>since they do not want to learn idiosyncratic target dependent
|>tools for each target.

actually "it is definitely true" is NOT a true statement; it is
your reading of the tea leaves; counterexample - I also program 
on DUX (Digital UNIX - now Compaq's Tru64 unix), and on that 
platform I prefer the "native debugger" ladebug and not GDB;
again that is because of the usability of ladebug (hint: it looks
a lot like VMSdebugger to me) and my lack of expertise with GDB; 

(I will attempt to remedy my ignorance and give a more informed 
critique as time permits);

|>Actually I see nothing specially unixy about GDBTK (or DDD for
|>that matter). The whole point of TK or GTK is to provide target
|>independence for GUI's. There may be things you don't like about
|>GDBTK, but I doubt they are specifically unix related in any
|>sense. Equally there may be things you like, but there again,
|>I doubt there is any real unix involvement.
|>
|>Robert Dewar
|>Ada Core Technologies

on VMS the need for a fullscreen debugger meant that you had to
also provide tcl/tk; not necessarily a trivial task, but OTOH a
nice service;

--bn (Bart Nickerson)
nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com
(206) 662-0183