[OT] Grumble...

Discussion in 'C++' started by Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. Visual Studio 2010, an IDE!

    Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or "Idiot's
    Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for idiots"?

    OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I haven't
    checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.

    But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else. There is some
    extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical documentation. When you set
    out to find on help on something other than an identifier you could, formerly,
    (1) google, (2) use the MSDN Library index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library
    hierarchical table of contents. With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as
    cheap replacements for software engineers?) removed the index and as default
    turned off the table of contents. Leaving people to google. That is, Google.

    Argh.


    Frustrated,

    - Alf

    --
    blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
    Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, Jul 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Balog Pal Guest

    "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <>

    > Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or "Idiot's
    > Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for idiots"?
    >
    > OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I haven't
    > checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.
    >
    > But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else. There is
    > some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical documentation.
    > When you set out to find on help on something other than an identifier you
    > could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the MSDN Library index, and/or (3)
    > use the MSDN Library hierarchical table of contents. With VS2010 the MS
    > beach engineers (hired as cheap replacements for software engineers?)
    > removed the index and as default turned off the table of contents. Leaving
    > people to google. That is, Google.
    >
    > Argh.


    The help system is going downhill since MSVC 5.0 :-((. Both content and
    accessing. I'm at VS2008 but learn to skip the temptation of F1 and go
    directly to google. Quite sad.

    My more painful observation is that in 2008 you can still compile 'browser
    info' and you get all the fancy files, but it is not used for anything. And
    instead of reading what is used where the call graphs use textual search of
    the sources, repeatedly. Hitting all the similar names in the process :-((.
    Balog Pal, Jul 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    joe Guest

    Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
    > Visual Studio 2010, an IDE!
    >
    > Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or
    > "Idiot's Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for
    > idiots"?
    > OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I
    > haven't checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.
    >
    > But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else.
    > There is some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical
    > documentation. When you set out to find on help on something other
    > than an identifier you could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the MSDN
    > Library index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library hierarchical table of
    > contents. With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as cheap
    > replacements for software engineers?) removed the index and as
    > default turned off the table of contents. Leaving people to google.
    > That is, Google.
    > Argh.
    >
    >
    > Frustrated,


    I hate the help system too, but as the MS help system has "evolved" (for
    the worse), I have moved farther away from it. If I have a question about
    some MS construct, I just go to the web or MSDN specifically (and MSDN
    gets frustrating too... ). Ahhhh, "progress" (or some bizarro idea of
    it!). </soapbox>

    That said, out of the box MS products are all hyped up to focus on their
    proprietary technologies (.net currently is the elephant in the room).
    After about an hour of setting up the IDE's toolbars and stuff (a very
    tedious process, whereas in past products it was drag-n-drop easy, but
    now you have to look up one toolbar button at a time in a dog-slow GUI),
    it becomes almost useable. I say "almost" because on my 2.4 GHz/4 Gig RAM
    machine all that GUI stuff makes the IDE unresponsive (and yes, I have as
    much of the "helpers", like Intellisense, turned off as possible). I do
    like the multiple tabbed windows though. It helped my productivity on my
    paltry 24" widescreen. Overall, if it wasn't such a resource hog (read
    crappy software engineering at best, designed that way on purpose at
    worst) so that it would be responsive on paltry 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM
    machines, it would be then not crappy software. But then Intel might
    disassociate with them.

    MS VS 2010: 1 star.
    joe, Jul 31, 2010
    #3
  4. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <i2up1l$l9m$-september.org>,
    says...

    [ ... ]

    > But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else.
    > There is some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical
    > documentation. When you set out to find on help on something other
    > than an identifier you could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the
    > MSDN Library index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library hierarchical
    > table of contents. With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as
    > cheap replacements for software engineers?) removed the index and
    > as default turned off the table of contents. Leaving people to
    > google. That is, Google.


    Take a look at:

    http://mshcmigrate.helpmvp.com/viewer

    This offers at least some improvement over what's provided with VS
    2010 (though it's still only about on a par with VS 2008 -- well
    short of anything like VS 5 or 6).

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
    Jerry Coffin, Aug 3, 2010
    #4
  5. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <nqN4o.42877$>,
    says...

    [ ... ]

    > Overall, if it wasn't such a resource hog (read
    > crappy software engineering at best, designed that way on purpose at
    > worst) so that it would be responsive on paltry 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM
    > machines, it would be then not crappy software.


    Mostly it's read as: "a lot of it was rewritten in C#."

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.
    Jerry Coffin, Aug 3, 2010
    #5
  6. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    cpp4ever Guest

    On 07/30/2010 03:53 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
    > Visual Studio 2010, an IDE!
    >
    > Now, does "IDE" stand for "Integrated Development Environment" or
    > "Idiot's Development Environment"? Sort of, "made by idiots, for idiots"?
    >
    > OK, the debugger is presumably still one of the best, although I haven't
    > checked, I can't see how they could have dared to f*** it up.
    >
    > But, configuration, help system, editor, sort of everything else. There
    > is some extreme irony wrt. to the help system, the technical
    > documentation. When you set out to find on help on something other than
    > an identifier you could, formerly, (1) google, (2) use the MSDN Library
    > index, and/or (3) use the MSDN Library hierarchical table of contents.
    > With VS2010 the MS beach engineers (hired as cheap replacements for
    > software engineers?) removed the index and as default turned off the
    > table of contents. Leaving people to google. That is, Google.
    >
    > Argh.
    >
    >
    > Frustrated,
    >
    > - Alf
    >


    Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
    and letting Windows be consigned to history.

    cpp4ever
    cpp4ever, Aug 3, 2010
    #6
  7. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Balog Pal Guest

    "cpp4ever" <>

    > Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
    > and letting Windows be consigned to history.


    Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach down
    the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age. Okay, not
    in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago, that is no
    longer the case, so it is an evading chase.

    (For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008 eunning
    in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of that hybrid
    it is still way better compared to what collegues are using (what is a wide
    range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)
    Balog Pal, Aug 3, 2010
    #7
  8. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    cpp4ever Guest

    On 08/03/2010 06:26 PM, Balog Pal wrote:
    > "cpp4ever" <>
    >
    >> Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
    >> and letting Windows be consigned to history.

    >
    > Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach
    > down the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age.
    > Okay, not in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago,
    > that is no longer the case, so it is an evading chase.
    >
    > (For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008
    > eunning in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of
    > that hybrid it is still way better compared to what collegues are using
    > (what is a wide range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)
    >


    Not my experience, although I've not tried Microsoft C++ dev tools in
    years, I've found plenty of tools that work fine on Linux. But if you're
    used to the Microsoft way of doing things then I suppose Linux could
    seem difficult.

    cpp4ever
    cpp4ever, Aug 3, 2010
    #8
  9. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Balog Pal Guest

    "cpp4ever" <>
    >>> Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
    >>> and letting Windows be consigned to history.

    >>
    >> Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach
    >> down the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age.
    >> Okay, not in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago,
    >> that is no longer the case, so it is an evading chase.
    >>
    >> (For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008
    >> eunning in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of
    >> that hybrid it is still way better compared to what collegues are using
    >> (what is a wide range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)
    >>

    >
    > Not my experience, although I've not tried Microsoft C++ dev tools in
    > years, I've found plenty of tools that work fine on Linux. But if you're
    > used to the Microsoft way of doing things then I suppose Linux could
    > seem difficult.


    What I'm used to is not "MS tools" but the ability to access the information
    that is there. Like navigation in the code (declarations, definitions,
    callerr/callee graphs, members, types, etc). Auto opening the related
    files, placing the cursor where needed, with ability to navigate back.

    Not really anything that is "rocket science" or what was not known to tools
    for decades. The best approximation I found on linux was Eclipse CDT, but
    with all it have it still lacks a plenty, and the interface is simply nuts.
    I asked people on expert foruns for advice on tools, and looked after
    everything suggested. No luck. What could you suggest that works?

    My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?
    Balog Pal, Aug 3, 2010
    #9
  10. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    cpp4ever Guest

    On 08/03/2010 07:41 PM, Balog Pal wrote:
    > "cpp4ever" <>
    >>>> Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
    >>>> and letting Windows be consigned to history.
    >>>
    >>> Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach
    >>> down the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age.
    >>> Okay, not in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago,
    >>> that is no longer the case, so it is an evading chase.
    >>>
    >>> (For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008
    >>> eunning in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of
    >>> that hybrid it is still way better compared to what collegues are using
    >>> (what is a wide range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not my experience, although I've not tried Microsoft C++ dev tools in
    >> years, I've found plenty of tools that work fine on Linux. But if you're
    >> used to the Microsoft way of doing things then I suppose Linux could
    >> seem difficult.

    >
    > What I'm used to is not "MS tools" but the ability to access the
    > information that is there. Like navigation in the code (declarations,
    > definitions, callerr/callee graphs, members, types, etc). Auto opening
    > the related files, placing the cursor where needed, with ability to
    > navigate back.
    >
    > Not really anything that is "rocket science" or what was not known to
    > tools for decades. The best approximation I found on linux was
    > Eclipse CDT, but with all it have it still lacks a plenty, and the
    > interface is simply nuts. I asked people on expert foruns for advice on
    > tools, and looked after everything suggested. No luck. What could you
    > suggest that works?
    >
    > My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?
    >


    Can do all of that,not necessarily completely integrated. Qt Creator
    does code navigation, amongst others, and Doxygen can create
    documentation, (UML and caller/called graphs and class documentation).
    I'm not sure you'd get on with KDevelop 4 as it is based around cmake.
    As for debugging I've managed to do that within Qt Creator, KDevelop 4,
    and even Eclipse. Although I always thought Eclipse was mainly targeted
    at Java, with C++ plugin added on. That said there is a Doxygen plugin
    for Eclipse called eclox. Personally I find KDevelop 4 and Qt Creator
    work fine for me, but some folks are not comfortable editing the key
    cmake/qmake configuration file. You might want to try KDbg if you need a
    separate debugger, although I suspect with you being used to MS tools
    you'd find most of these Linux tools to not be to your taste requirements.

    cpp4ever


    cpp4ever
    cpp4ever, Aug 3, 2010
    #10
  11. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 08/ 4/10 06:41 AM, Balog Pal wrote:
    > "cpp4ever" <>
    >>>> Thanks for reminding of one of many reasons for adopting Linux at home,
    >>>> and letting Windows be consigned to history.
    >>>
    >>> Even going downhill as described it will take another century to reach
    >>> down the linux level... Which holds position stable in the stone age.
    >>> Okay, not in all areas -- some tools like ddd used to work a decade ago,
    >>> that is no longer the case, so it is an evading chase.
    >>>
    >>> (For reference I'm currently working in a linux shop, and use VS2008
    >>> eunning in a virtualbox as the main devtool. With all the drawbacks of
    >>> that hybrid it is still way better compared to what collegues are using
    >>> (what is a wide range of tools). I hoped for better, but in vain.)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not my experience, although I've not tried Microsoft C++ dev tools in
    >> years, I've found plenty of tools that work fine on Linux. But if you're
    >> used to the Microsoft way of doing things then I suppose Linux could
    >> seem difficult.

    >
    > What I'm used to is not "MS tools" but the ability to access the
    > information that is there. Like navigation in the code (declarations,
    > definitions, callerr/callee graphs, members, types, etc). Auto opening
    > the related files, placing the cursor where needed, with ability to
    > navigate back.
    >
    > Not really anything that is "rocket science" or what was not known to
    > tools for decades. The best approximation I found on linux was Eclipse
    > CDT, but with all it have it still lacks a plenty, and the interface is
    > simply nuts. I asked people on expert foruns for advice on tools, and
    > looked after everything suggested. No luck. What could you suggest that
    > works?


    Netbeans is the alternative kitchen sink IDE.

    > My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?


    Most Linux devs are happy with it. I use OpenSolaris which opens up
    another world of observability tools. OpenSolaris also has a better
    debugger (dbx) and the best profiling and analysis tools I know
    (especially for multi-threading).

    There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and windows
    developers which does make the transition form one environment to the
    other difficult.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Aug 3, 2010
    #11
  12. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Miles Bader Guest

    Ian Collins <> writes:
    >> My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?

    >
    > Most Linux devs are happy with it. I use OpenSolaris which opens up
    > another world of observability tools. OpenSolaris also has a better
    > debugger (dbx) and the best profiling and analysis tools I know
    > (especially for multi-threading).
    >
    > There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and windows
    > developers which does make the transition form one environment to the
    > other difficult.


    Indeed. gdb is a fine debugger for the most part; it's obviously
    lacking in the "mousey-clicky" department, but it's extremely powerful
    in other ways. Which you like better generally has an awful lot more to
    do with _what you're used to_ than the actual capabilities.
    [although not in all cases -- the original gdb, for instance, was a huge
    improvement over the buggy feature-poor versions of sun dbx it competed
    against in the late 80s / early 90s]

    I use VS's debugger on occasion -- usually because there are VS-heads
    here at work who are just not up to some debugging tasks, and I have to
    do it for them -- and it drives me _nuts_. To me, the VS debugger seems
    horrible, almost unusable, mostly because it's hiding behind a fairly
    opaque GUI (despite having a regular user beside me to answer usage
    questions).

    As an example, there are many occasions when VS will display an address
    (say, in a memory dump or something), and I want to see what's at that
    address, interpreted in a different way. In gdb, I can almost always do
    this using an expression that operates on the previous value, or by
    using command-line editing to tweak a previous command. In
    VS... there's often simply no obvious way to do it -- even the obvious
    GUIey cut-and-paste solution doesn't work, because copying simply isn't
    supported in many contexts, and after much gnashing of teeth, consulting
    with other users, looking in the menus/doc/etc, I often just end up
    typing the damn value in by hand. This sort of "information displayed,
    but not otherwise usable" situation crops up _all the time_ when I use
    VS for debugging (and it's not like I don't try to find a way to do it
    -- I ask regular users, spend time searching the menus, look at the
    docs, etc, but usually to no avail).

    That kind of thing just smacks of very poor design to me, and makes me
    wonder if the VS debugger implementors actually ever use it for
    debugging or at least any debugging beyond the simple everyday sort...

    Grrrr

    -Miles

    --
    Success, n. The one unpardonable sin against one's fellows.
    Miles Bader, Aug 4, 2010
    #12
  13. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Sousuke Guest

    Re: Grumble...

    On Aug 3, 8:35 pm, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    > As an example, there are many occasions when VS will display an address
    > (say, in a memory dump or something), and I want to see what's at that
    > address, interpreted in a different way.  In gdb, I can almost always do
    > this using an expression that operates on the previous value, or by
    > using command-line editing to tweak a previous command.  In
    > VS... there's often simply no obvious way to do it -- even the obvious
    > GUIey cut-and-paste solution doesn't work, because copying simply isn't
    > supported in many contexts, and after much gnashing of teeth, consulting
    > with other users, looking in the menus/doc/etc, I often just end up
    > typing the damn value in by hand.  This sort of "information displayed,
    > but not otherwise usable" situation crops up _all the time_ when I use
    > VS for debugging (and it's not like I don't try to find a way to do it
    > -- I ask regular users, spend time searching the menus, look at the
    > docs, etc, but usually to no avail).


    I don't know about "all the time". The only such place I can imagine
    is a standard message box that you get e.g. when an assertion fails.
    But in the actual debugger window you can always copy text, whether
    it's in one of the "Autos", "Locals", "Threads", etc. windows, or in
    the little textbox that pops up when you hover the mouse over an
    identifier.

    Got any other points? Because other than that your rant seems like a
    typical case of Unix/C pro-command-line anti-GUI anti-progress anti-
    evolution hacker syndrome.
    Sousuke, Aug 4, 2010
    #13
  14. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    joe Guest

    Jerry Coffin wrote:
    > In article <nqN4o.42877$>,
    > says...
    >
    > [ ... ]
    >
    >> Overall, if it wasn't such a resource hog (read
    >> crappy software engineering at best, designed that way on purpose at
    >> worst) so that it would be responsive on paltry 2.4 GHz, 4 Gig RAM
    >> machines, it would be then not crappy software.

    >
    > Mostly it's read as: "a lot of it was rewritten in C#."


    If that is the reason, then it surely moves C# into the realm of
    scripting languages rather than system-level or low-level and C++ is then
    safe from obsolescence from it.
    joe, Aug 4, 2010
    #14
  15. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Balog Pal Guest

    "Miles Bader" <>
    >> There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and windows
    >> developers which does make the transition form one environment to the
    >> other difficult.


    Maybe in general, does not apply to me, as I started programming well before
    windows gor widespread, got used to all kinds of tools on DOS, embedded
    systems, etc. (Btw Borland's Turbo debugger showed that you can create a
    handy debugger for the text screen that is about the workflow...)

    > Indeed. gdb is a fine debugger for the most part; it's obviously
    > lacking in the "mousey-clicky" department, but it's extremely powerful
    > in other ways.


    Sure, a shovel is an extremely powerful tool to dig a hole, you can do it
    exactly your way. Why bother with machines that can do the same faster and
    save time?

    I don't use debugger so often, when I do, it is to inspect the state. So I
    need to see the value of all kind of variables and the call stack. And
    certainly the source related to the stack trace. With gdb you must use
    extreme amount of typing to see just a portion of what is obviously needed.
    And can't realisticly see the relevant pieces at once.

    What turns a trivial 2-minute session into a hour one nightmare. Also,
    other debuggers save context of the session, so next time you have the
    environment ready with all the watches, breakpoints, etc. gdb used to at
    least keep the command history, that is no longer the case on lucid :-(.
    Also I mentioned some front-ends like ddd that at least aimed to cover the
    actual use cases did work, now all you get is a blocked interface so you
    must ssh in from a different machine for a pkill.

    I agree that i met too many people being happy with gdb, but all of them had
    the same attitude: they did not care about the wasted time.

    > Which you like better generally has an awful lot more to
    > do with _what you're used to_ than the actual capabilities.


    Do you count the pace of progress in the 'capability' category?

    > I use VS's debugger on occasion -- usually because there are VS-heads
    > here at work who are just not up to some debugging tasks, and I have to
    > do it for them -- and it drives me _nuts_. To me, the VS debugger seems
    > horrible, almost unusable, mostly because it's hiding behind a fairly
    > opaque GUI (despite having a regular user beside me to answer usage
    > questions).


    You can summon a command window if the ability to do the work in one click
    is so frigtening. :-o

    > As an example, there are many occasions when VS will display an address
    > (say, in a memory dump or something), and I want to see what's at that
    > address, interpreted in a different way.


    > In gdb, I can almost always do
    > this using an expression that operates on the previous value, or by
    > using command-line editing to tweak a previous command.


    Can't imagine yor context, the same thing works in the watch window. The
    difference is just that it stays there.

    Though reinterpreting data leads to the wild, isn't it the more usual case
    when you just want to inspect the state of your objects natively?

    > In VS... there's often simply no obvious way to do it -- even the obvious
    > GUIey cut-and-paste solution doesn't work, because copying simply isn't
    > supported in many contexts


    Can you give examples?

    > , and after much gnashing of teeth, consulting
    > with other users, looking in the menus/doc/etc, I often just end up
    > typing the damn value in by hand.


    LOL. So typing annoys you for that corner situation. Now imagine how I
    feel using gdb, when I need to do typing and typing ant more redundant
    typing and typing again for everything, everytime? Instead of having the
    watched variables just there, the call stack in its window, hower tho mouse
    over a variable to show the value? Then just step, step, and still see the
    result?
    Balog Pal, Aug 4, 2010
    #15
  16. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Öö Tiib Guest

    Re: Grumble...

    On 4 aug, 08:37, Miles Bader <> wrote:
    > Sousuke <> writes:
    > > Got any other points? Because other than that your rant seems like a
    > > typical case of Unix/C pro-command-line anti-GUI anti-progress anti-
    > > evolution hacker syndrome.

    >
    > Why, because I think VS's debugger is kinda crappy?  That's an issue
    > with VS, not with "GUIs/progress/evolution" (the fact that you conflate
    > the three is telling of course...).


    He asked for points and your point is that "it is kinda crappy"? Hehe?

    Looking at all these kdbg, ddd and what there are about debugging with
    GUI in Linux then these get things done but are weaker. If you say
    that all should use emacs + gdb feels sort of like anti-progress
    indeed.

    > I'm not "anti-GUI," I'm "anti-bad-GUI" -- and sadly, there are many,
    > especially in "expert" tools like debuggers, where conventions that
    > might make sense with novice-focused apps (where GUIs shine) simply get
    > in the way.


    What exactly gets in the way? Multiple, customizable views at the
    situation you are in that update with each step you make?

    Or ... for example lets compare? Imagine that you do not have a tool
    that measures test coverage. You have to do it manually with
    debugger.
    Visual studio:
    1) Set all functions to break (F9 or click per breakpoint right in
    editor).
    2) Run unit tests (pick configuration UnitTest 2 clicks and F5 to
    run).
    3) Clear covered breakpoints (click to clear, F5 to run ahead ).
    4) See list of places not yet covered with tests (Alt-F9 breakpoint
    window).

    Yes, i can teach it to novice with 5 minutes. Now describe same work
    with your "expert" emacs and gdb symbiosis and how you teach that to
    novice? Is debugger an "expert" tool of job security by obscurity?
    Does it create job positions that no one wants?
    Öö Tiib, Aug 4, 2010
    #16
  17. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    James Kanze Guest

    Re: Grumble...

    On Aug 3, 9:02 pm, Ian Collins <> wrote:
    > On 08/ 4/10 06:41 AM, Balog Pal wrote:


    [...]
    > > My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?


    > Most Linux devs are happy with it.


    I never cared much for it, but now that I have to use Visual
    Studios... The Microsoft debugger has to be the worst I've seen
    to date.

    [...]
    > There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and
    > windows developers which does make the transition form one
    > environment to the other difficult.


    From experience, however: the Unix developers I know who work
    under Windows generally have CygWin installed. And are
    considerably more productive than the expert Windows developers.

    --
    James Kanze
    James Kanze, Aug 4, 2010
    #17
  18. Re: Grumble...

    * James Kanze, on 04.08.2010 16:19:
    > On Aug 3, 9:02 pm, Ian Collins<> wrote:
    >> On 08/ 4/10 06:41 AM, Balog Pal wrote:

    >
    > [...]
    >>> My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?

    >
    >> Most Linux devs are happy with it.

    >
    > I never cared much for it, but now that I have to use Visual
    > Studios... The Microsoft debugger has to be the worst I've seen
    > to date.


    How so? It's about the best there is. Until recently gdb couldn't even trace
    into constructors, and it's generally erratic, while MS' debugger is dependable.

    I suspect a PEBKAC problem when you dimiss the generally best debugger around as
    "worst".


    >
    > [...]
    >> There is a different mindset amongst Unix/Linux developers and
    >> windows developers which does make the transition form one
    >> environment to the other difficult.

    >
    > From experience, however: the Unix developers I know who work
    > under Windows generally have CygWin installed. And are
    > considerably more productive than the expert Windows developers.


    Most Windows developers have *nix tools installed, including a *nix shell.

    CygWin has it all in one package but isn't very good (really).


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf

    --
    blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
    Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, Aug 4, 2010
    #18
  19. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    Dilip Guest

    Re: Grumble...

    On Aug 4, 9:27 am, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
    > wrote:
    > * James Kanze, on 04.08.2010 16:19:
    >
    > > On Aug 3, 9:02 pm, Ian Collins<>  wrote:
    > >> On 08/ 4/10 06:41 AM, Balog Pal wrote:

    >
    > >      [...]
    > >>> My other pain is debugger -- is the world really stuck with gdb?

    >
    > >> Most Linux devs are happy with it.

    >
    > > I never cared much for it, but now that I have to use Visual
    > > Studios... The Microsoft debugger has to be the worst I've seen
    > > to date.

    >
    > How so? It's about the best there is. Until recently gdb couldn't even trace
    > into constructors, and it's generally erratic, while MS' debugger is dependable.
    >
    > I suspect a PEBKAC problem when you dimiss the generally best debugger around as
    > "worst".
    >


    At the risk of wading into another mine-is-bigger-than-yours flame war
    (et tu James?), nobody has mentioned WinDbg so far? Visual Studio's
    integrated debugger has made some strides in the past few years, but
    WinDbg/CDB/NTSD troika has always matched up to whatever gdb can do
    for quite a while.
    Dilip, Aug 4, 2010
    #19
  20. Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet

    red floyd Guest

    Re: Grumble...

    On Aug 3, 6:35 pm, Miles Bader <> wrote:

    > Indeed.  gdb is a fine debugger for the most part; it's obviously
    > lacking in the "mousey-clicky" department, but it's extremely powerful
    > in other ways.  Which you like better generally has an awful lot more to
    > do with _what you're used to_ than the actual capabilities.
    > [although not in all cases -- the original gdb, for instance, was a huge
    > improvement over the buggy feature-poor versions of sun dbx it competed
    > against in the late 80s / early 90s]


    Speaking of dbx, did anyone ever port dbxtra/dbXtra to Linux? dbxtra
    was
    oldSCO's variant of dbx, it could run in either line mode, or screen
    (curses) mode, and it did some nice things, such as cleanly handling
    forked processes. dbXtra was the GUI version.
    red floyd, Aug 4, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page