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: 103376,2cdc6c2ee911fe77 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: gdb question, was Re: Ada vs. C++ Date: 2000/02/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 585936908 References: <88a775$gsq$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: nnrp3-w.snfc21.pbi.net 950577071 206.170.2.215 (Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:11:11 PST) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:11:11 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >It has a lot to do with the quality of the Ada compilers and >associated tools, especially debugging tools. I recently needed, for the first time, to use gdb. It seemed non-obvious and extremely klutzy. Is that just my unfamiliarity, or does that match others' observation? Of course the fact I've been able to live without that kind of debugger for so long reinforces the observation that a "debugger" of that kind is less vital with Ada than with other languages.