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-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr14.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.100.216 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net 1177086893 ST000 70.134.100.216 (Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:34:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:34:53 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_@SBEQJV]SQ@[EZOD]_\@VR]^@B@MCPWZKB]MPXHJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:34:53 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15159 Date: 2007-04-20T16:34:53+00:00 List-Id: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" wrote in message news:82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr... >> > Sorry, but I beg to disagree here. Conceptual bugs are found by reasonning on > the source, not with a debugger. Every now and then you may need to check the > value of a variable at some point in execution to validate or invalidate an > hypothesis, but even there, I find a proper trace message much faster and more > precise than using a debugger. > -- I almost always agree with Jean-Pierre. However, I do recall a project in Ada written for a MIL-STD 1750A where the debugger was an integral part of the verification (inspection) process. Some may recall the HP 65000 tool that was so useful in tracing, step by step, the execution of a program while simultaneously presenting a human-readable version of the underlying executable code. This is an extreme example, and the criticality of the application was such that this level of inspection was required for inspection. It was certainly tedious, would be unnecessary in most applications, but was probably the correct decision in this situation. And, "No" I would not recommend this approach to anyone for most software systems -- unless they are looking for a guaranteed cure for insomnia. Richard Riehle