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: 103376,61e9062c1f23b9d5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: contracted exceptions Date: 8 Jun 2007 21:44:15 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <1181165630.012508.55290@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <19fxsxv1god43$.1pqq8vgfu2itn$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1181356962 9584 192.135.80.34 (9 Jun 2007 02:42:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 02:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16130 Date: 2007-06-08T21:44:15-05:00 List-Id: In article , "Randy Brukardt" writes: > "Simon Wright" wrote in message > news:m2k5ue8dhk.fsf@mac.com... > ... >> If our fielded application raises an unhandled exception it's going to >> be the result of a design error or at least a design shortcoming. We >> will log the exception traceback and stop all application processing; >> the system is in an unstable state. The operator can then restart and >> (if we are lucky) send us the fault log for debugging. If we're >> unlucky they'll just complain about us to each other and our >> reputation is shot. >> >> The operator has no access to or interest in a debugger. > > And that's true for virtually all applications. [Aside: didn't we have this > discussion a few months ago??] Only the original developer(s) care about why > something failed; other users (the vast majority) only care that it failed. > Even users of a compiler don't want an internal error to throw them into a > debugger: what value could that have? (As for the original developer(s), > they can only use a debugger if they can reproduce the actual error -- and > the ability to do that is rare. It's actually better to have the partial > information from a good logging mechanism, because at least some fraction of > the time the error will be obvious and fixable. And the information doesn't > have to be that partial; I recall that the error dump on the Pascal compiler > we used in college actually dumped all of the local variables in its > traceback on a failure. There is a long tradition of a "core dump" on a failing program, although these days it tends to be more structured. The VMS dump from an application can be examined back at the developer's shop using the regular debugger interface -- for those cases where the security policy of the user site allows export of such opaque data to the developer.