Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!purchase From: purchase@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: OO debuggers Message-ID: <37100005@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> Date: 16 Sep 88 19:59:00 GMT References: <37100002@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk> Lines: 91 Nf-ID: #R:pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk:37100002:pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk:37100005:000:4113 Nf-From: pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!purchase Sep 16 19:59:00 1988 KEY: >>> Written 09:37 pm Sep 9, 1988 by purchase@uk.ac.ucl.cs >> Written 12:47 am Sep 12, 1988 by becher@argosy.UUCP > Written 07:19 pm Sep 12, 1988 by jans@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM >>>I have been surprised and disappointed to learn that most >>>of the testing/debugging tools I have come across for OO languages seem to >>>be merely poor conversions of procedure-oriented language debuggers. >>So we have poor conversions of poor products ... >>>I might be wrong, but I think that languages of a (relatively) new paradigm >>>like OOP need *new* innovative support tools to back them. Does any one out >>>there have any strong opinions about this? >>You are not wrong - you are absolutely right. >>However, this lack of debugging tools is not confined to the OO domain. >>I defy you to show you one generally-available debugger that is the least >>bit "innovative". They all seem to be stuck in the Linton dbx mold -- >>i.e. dumb terminal textual rather than multiple window graphical (no >>offense Mark, but the time has come to move on). From what I can gather >>there are precious few people working on the debugging problem >>(Zellwegger and Cargill are exceptions). I could not agree more. During my preliminary literature survey I noticed a distinct lack of any truly innovative work after 1985. With the exceptions of Bruegge and Cargill. One of my colleagues conducted a survey (amongst colleges in London University) which showed that 40% of programmers *never* use debuggers and of these who do 25% consider that they are not very useful because they are: too cumbersome to use; are too difficult to learn and have inadequate user interfaces. The lack of good tools, both OO and otherwise is a problem. >>>With this in mind, has anyone out there used a OO debug tool (or related >>>utility) of any real merit? >>No (see above). In my humble opinion, gdb+ doesn't even come close. >>(Although, admittedly, it's better than almost anything else). You mean you got gdb+ to work? I could get it to debug straightforward c++ but as soon as I used the methods-display command or any of the extra "OO facilities" it went spurious on me. >you should look closely at the generally available Smalltalk-80 debugger, or >even the less capable, but more generally available (meaning cheaper), >Smalltalk-V debugger. (I think "generally available" means you can buy it >for a reasonable price for the most popular computing platforms.) I have. I am preparing a few internal research reports on it now. Agreed its better than gdb+ and one could not even begin to compare it to dbx (or dbxtool) but it has its problems. >C++ has a lot of catching up to do, but it seems to be evolving strictly in >the incestuous C-Unix environment. Agreed. Sad isn't it? > ..execution speed, the least important metric in the present "software > crisis" ... I'm not sure I agree fully here. Although you are undoubtedly right generally, one of the important properties of a debugger is that it has minimal effect on the observable run-time behaviour of one's program. Smalltalk's debugger (and one or two others I have used) falls over here. Having to wait a minute for the debugger to simulate a method that usually concludes in 200mS is unacceptable -- especially if you are not informed of the delay in advance. >C'mon, guys, if you're going to make things better, >at least start with what was state-of-the art in 1980! I'm working on it! >>> Jan Purchase >> Jon Becher > Jan Steinman Thanks for listening... **************************************************************************** FROM : Jan Andrew Purchase | Snail: Room 208, PhD Lab., at : pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk | Computer Science Dept., | University College, | London, UK. | JANET : purchase@uk.ac.ucl.cs ARPANET : purchase@pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk **************************************************************************** (these are my views, and are not necessarily those of UCL) ****************************************************************************