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,d5b211b0c1ffcf3e X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.238.65 with SMTP id vi1mr460059pbc.7.1340303081505; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni4064pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Practicalities of Ada for app development Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <79c5c9f7-4b72-4990-8961-b3e2db4db79b@qz1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340303081 23071 127.0.0.1 (21 Jun 2012 18:24:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:24:41 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-06-21T11:16:55-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:14:45 AM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote: >=20 > I'm sure the situation is not the same for everyone, but I'm surprised th= at=20 > you (Adam) can get much use out of a debugger, since compilers and their= =20 > tools is definitely one case where a debugger is pretty much worthless (t= he=20 > only exception being the rare code generation bug). Well, since I do get a lot of use out of debuggers, the assertion in the se= cond half of your sentence is demonstrably false. I don't understand it, e= ither. Why would a compiler, or a compiler's tools, be of such a substanti= ally different nature than other programs, that would make a debugger usefu= l in one situation and useless in another? So far, there have been at least a couple general assertions on this thread= about the uselessness of debuggers (not merely observations based on exper= ience, but assertions as if it were a matter of fact), but I haven't seen = a good explanation why this assertion should be true. I'm beginning to thi= nk that either (1) everyone else's situation is substantially different fro= m mine, or (2) I use debuggers in ways that others aren't used to using, or= (3) I use debuggers that have features that aren't present in debuggers th= at others are used to using. Maybe we could start by having those who don't think debuggers are useful f= or Ada answer this: what do you think a debugger would be used for, when it= *is* useful? If your answer to this is a lot smaller then the set of thin= gs I think it can be used for, that may help explain why there's such a dif= ference of opinion. -- Adam