Re: Debugger Recommendation

Discussion in 'C++' started by Jorgen Grahn, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. Jorgen Grahn

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Mon, 2011-08-29, Joseph Hesse wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
    > best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
    >
    > I use gnu c++ and Linux.


    You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.

    On Unix, you need to be able to debug core dumps but when dealing with
    *running* programs it's more important to know tools like
    - the compiler
    - valgrind
    - strace and ltrace,
    and knowing how to write unit tests. All of that is IMHO more
    important than live debugging.

    /Jorgen

    [1] Not trying to start the debugger-versus-no-debugger war again. Just
    stating a fact. And no, I don't have any idea how many "many" is.

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
    Jorgen Grahn, Sep 11, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jorgen Grahn

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 11/09/11 22:37, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    > On Mon, 2011-08-29, Joseph Hesse wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
    >> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
    >>
    >> I use gnu c++ and Linux.

    >
    > You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    > traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    > Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >


    WOW Batman!!!

    You are just GREAT Batman.

    I have always looked in awe when you passed dressed in black,
    going to fight the forces of the evil bugs, without a debugger,
    just with your resolve and heroic lack of fear.

    Thanks for saving us Batman!
    jacob navia, Sep 11, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jorgen Grahn

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Sun, 2011-09-11, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 11/09/11 22:37, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    >> On Mon, 2011-08-29, Joseph Hesse wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
    >>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
    >>>
    >>> I use gnu c++ and Linux.

    >>
    >> You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    >> traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    >> Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >>

    >
    > WOW Batman!!!
    >
    > You are just GREAT Batman.
    >
    > I have always looked in awe when you passed dressed in black,
    > going to fight the forces of the evil bugs, without a debugger,
    > just with your resolve and heroic lack of fear.
    >
    > Thanks for saving us Batman!


    Do you have a point of some kind? Let me also repeat the part you
    neglected to quote:

    [1] Not trying to start the debugger-versus-no-debugger war again. Just
    stating a fact. And no, I don't have any idea how many "many" is.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
    Jorgen Grahn, Sep 12, 2011
    #3
  4. Jorgen Grahn

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 12/09/11 23:58, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    > On Sun, 2011-09-11, jacob navia wrote:
    >> Le 11/09/11 22:37, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    >>> On Mon, 2011-08-29, Joseph Hesse wrote:
    >>>> Hi,
    >>>>
    >>>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
    >>>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
    >>>>
    >>>> I use gnu c++ and Linux.
    >>>
    >>> You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    >>> traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    >>> Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >>>

    >>
    >> WOW Batman!!!
    >>
    >> You are just GREAT Batman.
    >>
    >> I have always looked in awe when you passed dressed in black,
    >> going to fight the forces of the evil bugs, without a debugger,
    >> just with your resolve and heroic lack of fear.
    >>
    >> Thanks for saving us Batman!

    >
    > Do you have a point of some kind? Let me also repeat the part you
    > neglected to quote:
    >
    > [1] Not trying to start the debugger-versus-no-debugger war again. Just
    > stating a fact. And no, I don't have any idea how many "many" is.
    >

    Look Jorgen, I can't really stand people that tell:

    > On Unix, you need to be able to debug core dumps but when dealing with
    > *running* programs it's more important to know tools like
    > - the compiler
    > - valgrind
    > - strace and ltrace,
    > and knowing how to write unit tests. All of that is IMHO more
    > important than live debugging.


    Implicitly you say that people that use a debugger are kind of
    slightly moronic, being unable to use
    - the compiler
    - valgrind
    - strace and ltrace
    and (of course) they do not know how to write unit tests.

    THAT is what bothers me, that condescending tone (On Unix... etc)
    as windows wouldn't have compilers, tools even better than valgrind,
    and windows programmers do not know what unit tests are.

    Anyway, as you yourself said, you used a debugger last Friday so
    it can't be kind of useless even for great programmers like you
    isn't it?
    jacob navia, Sep 12, 2011
    #4
  5. jacob navia <> wrote:
    > tools even better than valgrind,


    Are there any free ones? Because last time I chekced, there weren't
    (as incredible as that might sound).

    (Granted, this was quite some years ago. The situation might have changed
    since then.)
    Juha Nieminen, Sep 13, 2011
    #5
  6. Jorgen Grahn

    none Guest

    In article <j4m2fd$fc4$>,
    jacob navia <> wrote:
    >Le 12/09/11 23:58, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    >> On Sun, 2011-09-11, jacob navia wrote:
    >>> Le 11/09/11 22:37, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    >>>> You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    >>>> traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    >>>> Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> WOW Batman!!!
    >>>
    >>> You are just GREAT Batman.
    >>>
    >>> I have always looked in awe when you passed dressed in black,
    >>> going to fight the forces of the evil bugs, without a debugger,
    >>> just with your resolve and heroic lack of fear.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for saving us Batman!

    >>
    >> Do you have a point of some kind? Let me also repeat the part you
    >> neglected to quote:
    >>
    >> [1] Not trying to start the debugger-versus-no-debugger war again. Just
    >> stating a fact. And no, I don't have any idea how many "many" is.
    >>

    >Look Jorgen, I can't really stand people that tell:
    >
    > > On Unix, you need to be able to debug core dumps but when dealing with
    > > *running* programs it's more important to know tools like
    > > - the compiler
    > > - valgrind
    > > - strace and ltrace,
    > > and knowing how to write unit tests. All of that is IMHO more
    > > important than live debugging.

    >
    >Implicitly you say that people that use a debugger are kind of
    >slightly moronic, being unable to use
    >- the compiler
    >- valgrind
    >- strace and ltrace
    >and (of course) they do not know how to write unit tests.
    >
    >THAT is what bothers me, that condescending tone (On Unix... etc)
    >as windows wouldn't have compilers, tools even better than valgrind,
    >and windows programmers do not know what unit tests are.


    You chose to read it as condescending and then chose to reply in an
    extremely rude and childish manner. That's unfortunate.

    If we try to get the conversation back on track:

    I use debuggers. I find them useful. However, one thing that I
    strongly believe and that I have observed in some professional
    developpers is a far too great readiness to resort to the debugger as
    a first port of call.

    I believe the point that Jorgen was trying to make is that:

    - You should use compilers capabilities to help verify your code.
    - You should write unit tests and try to have high code coverage.
    With good unit test, a lot less debugging is required.
    - You should use tools like valgrind on your unit test and on your
    full program. Valgrind will often detect errors in one short run
    that will only be noticed after a "long time" in the field.

    Once you have done the above, a lot of the basic bugs have already
    been detected and fixed. That often leaves you with more difficult to
    find and more difficult to reproduce bugs. For these, stepping
    through with a debugger is often far from efficient (and often useless
    if there is a timing issue involved). In addition, for complex
    application, running through a debugger is often an extremely
    labourious task.

    For hard to find / hard to recreate bug, often observing the system
    using tools like strace, ltrace or even just high log level (it's a
    good idea to build in adjustable logging levels). By analysing what
    you observe for the above, you then figure out the location of the
    bug. At which point, often you can find more by improving your local
    unit tests but if you want, you can then finally open up the debugger
    and place a breakpoint near the area of interest.

    Maybe the above sound condescending to you but I have far too often
    seen a developper start with a debugger immediately and try to use a
    debugger to locate a problem in a >100Kloc multithreaded application.

    Yannick
    none, Sep 13, 2011
    #6
  7. Jorgen Grahn

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Mon, 2011-09-12, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 12/09/11 23:58, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    >> On Sun, 2011-09-11, jacob navia wrote:
    >>> Le 11/09/11 22:37, Jorgen Grahn a écrit :
    >>>> On Mon, 2011-08-29, Joseph Hesse wrote:
    >>>>> Hi,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have never used a debugger and would like to know which one(s) are the
    >>>>> best. I prefer one with a graphic interface.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I use gnu c++ and Linux.
    >>>>
    >>>> You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    >>>> traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    >>>> Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> WOW Batman!!!
    >>>
    >>> You are just GREAT Batman.

    ....
    >>
    >> Do you have a point of some kind? Let me also repeat the part you
    >> neglected to quote:
    >>
    >> [1] Not trying to start the debugger-versus-no-debugger war again. Just
    >> stating a fact. And no, I don't have any idea how many "many" is.
    >>

    > Look Jorgen, I can't really stand people that tell:
    >
    > > On Unix, you need to be able to debug core dumps but when dealing with
    > > *running* programs it's more important to know tools like
    > > - the compiler
    > > - valgrind
    > > - strace and ltrace,
    > > and knowing how to write unit tests. All of that is IMHO more
    > > important than live debugging.

    >
    > Implicitly you say that people that use a debugger are kind of
    > slightly moronic, being unable to use
    >
    > - the compiler
    > - valgrind
    > - strace and ltrace
    > and (of course) they do not know how to write unit tests.
    >
    > THAT is what bothers me, that condescending tone (On Unix... etc)
    > as windows wouldn't have compilers, tools even better than valgrind,
    > and windows programmers do not know what unit tests are.


    Ironically, I wrote "on Unix" so that people wouldn't call me a Unix
    bigot when I mentioned Unix-specific tools.

    On another day and in another mood I might have said the above
    condescendingly. But here I just tried to state facts as I see them.

    Remember the original poster? Yes, I believe that if he's familiar
    with none of the tools mentioned above, the interactive debugger
    shouldn't be at the top of his list.

    (BTW, I *do* know at least two programmers who are better at it than
    me, and who use the Visual Studio interactive debugger as one of their
    main tools.)

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
    Jorgen Grahn, Sep 13, 2011
    #7
  8. Jorgen Grahn

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 09/14/11 01:29 AM, none Yannick Tremblay wrote:
    > jacob navia<> wrote:
    >>
    >> THAT is what bothers me, that condescending tone (On Unix... etc)
    >> as windows wouldn't have compilers, tools even better than valgrind,
    >> and windows programmers do not know what unit tests are.

    >
    > You chose to read it as condescending and then chose to reply in an
    > extremely rude and childish manner. That's unfortunate.
    >
    > If we try to get the conversation back on track:
    >
    > I use debuggers. I find them useful. However, one thing that I
    > strongly believe and that I have observed in some professional
    > developpers is a far too great readiness to resort to the debugger as
    > a first port of call.
    >
    > I believe the point that Jorgen was trying to make is that:
    >
    > - You should use compilers capabilities to help verify your code.
    > - You should write unit tests and try to have high code coverage.
    > With good unit test, a lot less debugging is required.
    > - You should use tools like valgrind on your unit test and on your
    > full program. Valgrind will often detect errors in one short run
    > that will only be noticed after a "long time" in the field.


    I agree with all of the above, with the slight difference that on my
    platform of choice (OpenSolaris derivatives), the functionality of
    valgrind in a component of the debugger (dbx).

    In most of my work, tools that allow me to selectively observe a running
    system are more important that a debugger. It's only when you use a
    tool like Solaris' dtrace
    (http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community Group dtrace/) that you
    realise how useful they are.

    In my new code, I work to the rule that if I have to use the debugger to
    find a bug, my unit tests aren't good enough...

    As a tool for understanding someone else's code, the debugger is invaluable.

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Sep 13, 2011
    #8
  9. Jorgen Grahn

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 09/13/11 06:40 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    > jacob navia<> wrote:
    >> tools even better than valgrind,

    >
    > Are there any free ones? Because last time I chekced, there weren't
    > (as incredible as that might sound).


    Are you (Jacob) going to answer this?

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Sep 14, 2011
    #9
  10. Jorgen Grahn

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 15/09/11 00:26, Ian Collins a écrit :
    > On 09/13/11 06:40 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >> jacob navia<> wrote:
    >>> tools even better than valgrind,

    >>
    >> Are there any free ones? Because last time I chekced, there weren't
    >> (as incredible as that might sound).

    >
    > Are you (Jacob) going to answer this?
    >


    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd744766(v=vs.85).aspx

    The following Microsoft tools provide more-detailed information and can
    help to detect and diagnose leaks for the various allocation types in
    your application:

    Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor are part of Windows 7 and can
    monitor and graph resource use over time
    The latest version of Application Verifier can diagnose heap leaks on
    Windows 7
    UMDH, which is part of the Debugging Tools for Windows, analyzes the
    heap memory allocations for a given process and can help find leaks and
    other unusual usage patterns
    Xperf is a sophisticated performance analysis tool with support for heap
    allocation traces
    CRT Debug Heap tracks heap allocations and can help build your own heap
    debugging features


    http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going Deep/RADAR-Windows-Automatic-Memory-Leak-Detection

    I didn't look the video but it looks promising.

    Another memory leak tool:
    http://winleak.sourceforge.net/

    All of those are free. Of course you can BUY maybe better tools,
    something you can't do under linux.

    :)
    jacob navia, Sep 14, 2011
    #10
  11. Jorgen Grahn

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 09/15/11 10:57 AM, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 15/09/11 00:26, Ian Collins a écrit :
    >> On 09/13/11 06:40 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >>> jacob navia<> wrote:
    >>>> tools even better than valgrind,
    >>>
    >>> Are there any free ones? Because last time I chekced, there weren't
    >>> (as incredible as that might sound).

    >>
    >> Are you (Jacob) going to answer this?

    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd744766(v=vs.85).aspx


    It's good to see they recommend RAII.

    > The following Microsoft tools provide more-detailed information and can
    > help to detect and diagnose leaks for the various allocation types in
    > your application:
    >
    > Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor are part of Windows 7 and can
    > monitor and graph resource use over time
    > The latest version of Application Verifier can diagnose heap leaks on
    > Windows 7
    > UMDH, which is part of the Debugging Tools for Windows, analyzes the
    > heap memory allocations for a given process and can help find leaks and
    > other unusual usage patterns
    > Xperf is a sophisticated performance analysis tool with support for heap
    > allocation traces
    > CRT Debug Heap tracks heap allocations and can help build your own heap
    > debugging features


    Do any of these offer the most useful feature of valgrind and dbx:
    memory access checking?

    I am genuinely curious as I may have to update some windows based code!

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Sep 15, 2011
    #11
  12. Jorgen Grahn

    Lynn McGuire Guest

    On 9/14/2011 5:57 PM, jacob navia wrote:
    > Le 15/09/11 00:26, Ian Collins a écrit :
    >> On 09/13/11 06:40 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >>> jacob navia<> wrote:
    >>>> tools even better than valgrind,
    >>>
    >>> Are there any free ones? Because last time I chekced, there weren't
    >>> (as incredible as that might sound).

    >>
    >> Are you (Jacob) going to answer this?
    >>

    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd744766(v=vs.85).aspx
    >
    > The following Microsoft tools provide more-detailed information and can help to detect and diagnose leaks for the various allocation
    > types in your application:
    >
    > Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor are part of Windows 7 and can monitor and graph resource use over time
    > The latest version of Application Verifier can diagnose heap leaks on Windows 7
    > UMDH, which is part of the Debugging Tools for Windows, analyzes the heap memory allocations for a given process and can help find
    > leaks and other unusual usage patterns
    > Xperf is a sophisticated performance analysis tool with support for heap allocation traces
    > CRT Debug Heap tracks heap allocations and can help build your own heap debugging features
    >
    >
    > http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going Deep/RADAR-Windows-Automatic-Memory-Leak-Detection
    >
    > I didn't look the video but it looks promising.
    >
    > Another memory leak tool:
    > http://winleak.sourceforge.net/
    >
    > All of those are free. Of course you can BUY maybe better tools,
    > something you can't do under linux.
    >
    > :)


    You can buy Rational Purify for Windows, Lunix or Unix :
    http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/purify/

    Excellent tool and the noise is not bad. I haven't used
    it in several years though.

    Lynn
    Lynn McGuire, Sep 15, 2011
    #12
  13. Jorgen Grahn

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 09/15/11 11:16 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    >
    > You can buy Rational Purify for Windows, Lunix or Unix :
    > http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/purify/
    >
    > Excellent tool and the noise is not bad. I haven't used
    > it in several years though.


    Last time I tried Purify it did the job, but it didn't offer any
    benefits over the native OS (Solaris/Linux) tools. They also suffer
    from the usual shifting sand problems keeping up to date with Linux kernels!

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Sep 15, 2011
    #13
  14. jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor are part of Windows 7 and can
    > monitor and graph resource use over time


    It doesn't make completely clear whether it simply reports possible leaks,
    or whether it actually tells you which line of code made the allocation
    (that is then leaked).

    Anyways, not everybody has Windows 7 (including me).
    Juha Nieminen, Sep 15, 2011
    #14
  15. Jorgen Grahn

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 15/09/11 08:35, Juha Nieminen a écrit :
    > jacob navia<> wrote:
    >> Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor are part of Windows 7 and can
    >> monitor and graph resource use over time

    >
    > It doesn't make completely clear whether it simply reports possible leaks,
    > or whether it actually tells you which line of code made the allocation
    > (that is then leaked).
    >
    > Anyways, not everybody has Windows 7 (including me).


    Well, you should use a maintained windows system. For instance I was
    using an old version of Ubuntu and could not load updates any more.
    I had to upgrade.

    Now, windows is not very different.

    The performance monitor reports memory usage, so, if you have a leak
    you know how serious it is.

    See the documentation for further information.
    jacob navia, Sep 15, 2011
    #15
  16. jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Well, you should use a maintained windows system. For instance I was
    > using an old version of Ubuntu and could not load updates any more.
    > I had to upgrade.
    >
    > Now, windows is not very different.


    There's one big difference: Windows costs money, and not even a very
    insignificant amount. (It might be different on the MacOS X side, where
    an upgrade costs, what, something like 10 dollars?)

    I didn't upgrade from XP to Vista when it came out, and I certainly don't
    regret that decision. Why should have I wasted money on Vista, when XP worked
    just fine, and a few years forward and we have an even better version of
    "Vista", with most of the problems polished out.

    So far I have seen no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7 either.
    Maybe Windows 8 in a couple of years.

    (Of course it also affects this decision that Windows is not my main OS.
    I only use it to play games. So far games still support XP. When they stop
    supporting it, that's when the purchase of a new Windows might be relevant
    for me.)
    Juha Nieminen, Sep 15, 2011
    #16
  17. Jorgen Grahn

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 15/09/11 09:46, Juha Nieminen a écrit :
    > So far I have seen no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7 either.
    > Maybe Windows 8 in a couple of years.
    >
    > (Of course it also affects this decision that Windows is not my main OS.
    > I only use it to play games.


    The why the hell are you looking for a leak detector under windows
    then????

    To see if your games leak memory and debug them with the disassembler?

    YOU asked for a free leak detector under windows. I researched the
    subject, spent time answering, then...

    "I use windows to play games".

    Of course your whole point is to write about how bad windows
    is and how clever you are because you use linux. Typical of
    linux "fans".
    jacob navia, Sep 15, 2011
    #17
  18. Jorgen Grahn

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Jorgen Grahn wrote:

    > You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    > traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    > Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >
    > On Unix, you need to be able to debug core dumps but when dealing with
    > running programs it's more important to know tools like
    > - the compiler
    > - valgrind
    > - strace and ltrace,
    > and knowing how to write unit tests. All of that is IMHO more
    > important than live debugging.


    It can be said that one of the reasons why "many C++ users" tend not to use
    a debugger in linux is that gdb doesn't work well with C++, and once we
    ignore gdb there isn't much left to consider. Nonetheless, if there was a
    decent debugger that adequately supported C++ then "many C++ users" would
    use it, including for stuff where valgrind and other tools are employed.


    Rui Maciel
    Rui Maciel, Sep 15, 2011
    #18
  19. Jorgen Grahn

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Jorgen Grahn wrote:

    > Do you have a point of some kind? Let me also repeat the part you
    > neglected to quote:
    >
    > [1] Not trying to start the debugger-versus-no-debugger war again. Just
    > stating a fact. And no, I don't have any idea how many "many" is.


    Actually, you haven't expressed a fact, only an opinion. Unless you can
    actually demonstrate in an objective way that " many C++ users rarely or
    never use a traditional debugger" and that your definition of "many" refers
    to a relevant part of the C++ community, you can't claim it's a relevant
    statement with any relation to reality, let alone a fact.


    Rui Maciel
    Rui Maciel, Sep 15, 2011
    #19
  20. Jorgen Grahn

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 09/15/11 09:08 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
    > Jorgen Grahn wrote:
    >
    >> You might want to know that many C++ users rarely or never use a
    >> traditional debugger[1]. I'm one of them -- I used gdb for a while last
    >> Friday, but the time before that was many years ago.
    >>
    >> On Unix, you need to be able to debug core dumps but when dealing with
    >> running programs it's more important to know tools like
    >> - the compiler
    >> - valgrind
    >> - strace and ltrace,
    >> and knowing how to write unit tests. All of that is IMHO more
    >> important than live debugging.

    >
    > It can be said that one of the reasons why "many C++ users" tend not to use
    > a debugger in linux is that gdb doesn't work well with C++, and once we
    > ignore gdb there isn't much left to consider. Nonetheless, if there was a
    > decent debugger that adequately supported C++ then "many C++ users" would
    > use it, including for stuff where valgrind and other tools are employed.


    Not having a decent debugger (not an opinion of gdb as I don't use it)
    has the benefit of forcing the developer to write better unit tests. I
    learned that lesson writing PHP :)

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Sep 15, 2011
    #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.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    581
    Charles Bailey
    Feb 11, 2005
  2. jacob navia

    Re: Debugger Recommendation

    jacob navia, Aug 29, 2011, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    739
    DeMarcus
    Sep 22, 2011
  3. Paul
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    329
  4. Robert Oschler
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    222
    Mcginkel
    Sep 5, 2005
  5. aflat362
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    220
    naixn
    Dec 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page