murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) (03/23/88)
I have just received Manx 3.6 and SDB. I also have a new A2000, so
I am rather new to programming on the Amiga. However, I have been
using the Microsoft C 4.0 for about 2 years on a PC. Having grown up
with Codeview as a source-level debugger, I found the learning curve
to be very short or fast because of the convenient window/menu interface.
Why is there no menu interface for SDB???? I mean come on why have a mouse
and such a nice window system on the Amiga, and ignore the menus.
Before I get flamed about being seemingly unhappy with SDB, I do see features
that have as much or more power than Codeview, but since I'm not fluent
with SDB yet, I won't tell (can't remember) you what I saw. I am only
complaining about the menus and lack thereof.
William J. Murphy | ...ground! That's it! That's a good name-
murphy@newton.physics.purdue.edu | ground! I wonder if it will be friends
| with me? Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guideshimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) (03/26/88)
Hi~ Today I received my package of Aztec 3.6 with sdb. It is absolutely great. After knowing CodeV*ew on the PC's and a year of not having a SourceLevelDebugger on the Amiga I am absolutely happy. If there were a "Oscar" for Amiga- Software Jim Goodnow II would deserve it. *REALLY*. But I do not agree with William Murphy. A debugger needs no pulldownstuff at all. I stopped using the menus in CodeVi*w after some hours and I don't miss them in SDB. Maybe it makes learning easier but I think it is not worth the effort. Everyone who don't have Aztec, sell your compiler and order 3.6 with sdb! | C u Markus |._,| - - ==O== `-' Btw. I have nothing to do with Manx. Just a customer
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (03/27/88)
In article <935@rmi.UUCP| shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) writes: |Today I received my package of Aztec 3.6 with sdb. |It is absolutely great. After knowing CodeV*ew on the PC's |and a year of not having a SourceLevelDebugger on the Amiga |I am absolutely happy. If there were a "Oscar" for Amiga- |Software Jim Goodnow II would deserve it. *REALLY*. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Everyone who don't have Aztec, sell your compiler and order |3.6 with sdb! After having used SDB for over a month to debug 2 commercial programs I concur with the above quote and more: I think SDB is the best thing that was invented after sliced bread :-) I found a number of bugs that I believe would have taken me 3-4 times more time if I had to use DB (the assembler debugger), printf and kprintf. I sincerely hope CBM will consider this when they'll hand out prizes at the Dev. Conf. Jim Goodnow II has done an immense good job for us Amiga developers. At this point in time, any commercial developer that is NOT using SDB is clearly shooting himself in the foot, unless he has invested too much development in Lattice C. And consider that MANX is actually giving away SDB at the price they are selling it. -- Marco Papa -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
msl5864@ritcv.UUCP (Michael S. Leibow) (03/28/88)
In article <7901@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: .......... .......... >.... At >this point in time, any commercial developer that is NOT using SDB is >clearly shooting himself in the foot, unless he has invested too much >development in Lattice C. .......... .......... >-- Marco Papa Of course, some of us don't need debuggers! :-) -- Michael S. Leibow UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!msl5864 CSNET: msl5864%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (03/28/88)
In article <7901@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >After having used SDB for over a month to debug 2 commercial programs >I concur with the above quote and more: I think SDB is the best thing >that was invented after sliced bread :-) [ ... ] At >this point in time, any commercial developer that is NOT using SDB is >clearly shooting himself in the foot, [ ... ] SmugSelfRighteousMode (ON); I have never encountered a bug that I couldn't have discovered by taking a good, studious look at the source code. Further, I have never encountered a debugger that didn't introduce more problems than it solved. Conclusion: Debuggers are for weenies. So there. Nyahh! PTHhptbhptbhtptbhpbtbhpttt!!! :-) [ This myopic view of debuggers is brought to you by near-sighted programmer with a fashion sense only 400 years out of date whose only exposure to debuggers were those available on the C-64. ] _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
kenchiu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kenneth Chiu) (03/29/88)
In article <5550@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > I have never encountered a bug that I couldn't have discovered by >taking a good, studious look at the source code. I've never encountered a bug that I couldn't discover by looking at the core dump in hex.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (03/29/88)
In article <5550@well.UUCP| ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: |In article <7901@oberon.USC.EDU| I [papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)] write: ||After having used SDB for over a month to debug 2 commercial programs ||I concur with the above quote and more: I think SDB is the best thing ||that was invented after sliced bread :-) [ ... ] At ||this point in time, any commercial developer that is NOT using SDB is ||clearly shooting himself in the foot, [ ... ] | I have never encountered a bug that I couldn't have discovered by |taking a good, studious look at the source code. First, not everybody is a Leo Schwab. Second, some humans [yes, you are excluded Leo :-)] find it easier to see the "dynamic" of an executing program while stepping through it, than looking at a "static" piece of paper. Also, I am very lazy and prefer to just single step or breakpoint looking at the code in another window. Also when the code is more than 5,000 line long, I sincerely don't remember what is going on, especially if it is code I wrote over two years ago. | Further, I have never encountered a debugger that didn't introduce |more problems than it solved. So far I have not found one problem that was introduced by SDB that I didn't already have before. Maybe I have been lucky. Is there anybody else that has done some serious debugging with SDB? -- Marco Papa -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" - Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab [Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) (03/29/88)
In article <7901@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: : In article <935@rmi.UUCP| shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) writes: : |Today I received my package of Aztec 3.6 with sdb. : |It is absolutely great. After knowing CodeV*ew on the PC's : |and a year of not having a SourceLevelDebugger on the Amiga : |I am absolutely happy. If there were a "Oscar" for Amiga- : |Software Jim Goodnow II would deserve it. *REALLY*. : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : |Everyone who don't have Aztec, sell your compiler and order : |3.6 with sdb! : : After having used SDB for over a month to debug 2 commercial programs : I concur with the above quote and more: I think SDB is the best thing : that was invented after sliced bread :-) I found a number of bugs that : I believe would have taken me 3-4 times more time if I had to use DB (the Hi! Yes I was surprised, how easy SDB handled a program with 180K Source and a code of 70 to 80K. Ok it needed much memory but it did it. I suppose the debugger debugged itself heavily before being shipped. To find one special bug in my program I waited until I got SDB. And it was worth it. I found it within 1 hour. Otherwise it would have tied me upfor a minimum of two day. I absolutely aggree with Marco. Everyone not using it looses points in the competition. |._,| Cu - - Markus ==O== (shimoda@rmi.UUCP) `-' Never trust a smiling cat!
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (03/29/88)
in article <5550@well.UUCP>, ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) says: > [ This myopic view of debuggers is brought to you by near-sighted programmer > with a fashion sense only 400 years out of date whose only exposure to > debuggers were those available on the C-64. ] There were no debuggers on the C-64. There were, however, things called "monitors" and the like. We even put one in the ROM of the C128. Still, there's a good reason these things were called monitors. So you wouldn't get to thinking that what a debugger was all about. I tried SDB about a month ago, wrote a review on it, and I still haven't touched Lattice since then... > Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
malibo@arizona.edu (Rob McConeghy) (03/29/88)
In article <2211@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, kenchiu@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kenneth Chiu) writes: > In article <5550@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > > I have never encountered a bug that I couldn't have discovered by > >taking a good, studious look at the source code. > > I've never encountered a bug that I couldn't discover by looking at the > core dump in hex. Bug ?? What's a bug ?? ::-) Seriously though, next to not making stupid mistakes in the first place I, too, prefer the "look at the source and think about it" method, also known as gedanken-debuggen.
baer@percival.UUCP (Ken Baer) (03/31/88)
In article <5550@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <7901@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>After having used SDB for over a month to debug 2 commercial programs >>I concur with the above quote and more: I think SDB is the best thing >>that was invented after sliced bread :-) [ ... ] At >>this point in time, any commercial developer that is NOT using SDB is >>clearly shooting himself in the foot, [ ... ] > >SmugSelfRighteousMode (ON); > > I have never encountered a bug that I couldn't have discovered by >taking a good, studious look at the source code. > Conclusion: Debuggers are for weenies. Well, I've had the debugger for a few weeks now, and I've been very pleased with it. It's saved my can more than a number of times. For one thing it really helped me understand the low level IFF routines (no small feat). But, I do agree with Leo to a point. I use the Debugger as a kind of last resort. SBD is good in that it will tap you on the shoulder and say "Hey, STUPID!! Your error is right in front of your nose!" Also, even with the Debugger, you still have to take a good, studious look at your source code. SDB helps a LOT with telling you where to look. I have already saved hours that I would have spent doing African Safari Bug Hunts (sounds like a good game title :-). I would still recommend the Debugger to all Manx C programmers. Even Leo. The only other debugger I've used is UNIX dbx. SDB beats it hands down. Happy Hacking Everyone! -- -Ken Baer. // Hash Enterprises: When the Going gets Weird, the Weird go Professional \X/ USENET - ...tektronix!reed!percival!baer OR baer@percival.UUCP, BIX - kbaer, "while (AINTGOTNOSATISFACTION) { do stuff }" - RJ Mical
joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) (03/31/88)
In article <7922@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <5550@well.UUCP| ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >| I have never encountered a bug that I couldn't have discovered by >|taking a good, studious look at the source code. >| Further, I have never encountered a debugger that didn't introduce >|more problems than it solved. > >So far I have not found one problem that was introduced by SDB that I didn't >already have before. Maybe I have been lucky. Is there anybody else that >has done some serious debugging with SDB? I used to use "debug" on VAX/VMS whenever I ran into a problem that "couldn't be -- I looked and looked for it." Invariably I would have solved the problem *substantially* faster if I had just put in a few debug statements and thought about it a little. Then there are the bugs that go away when you run with the debugger 'cause the bug is the fact that you're screwing around with the stack incorrectly or not passing the right number of arguments or something. In any case, in my hours and hours of trying to debug programs with a run-time debugger, the only time it's ever really helped was the day I used sdb on rogue (again on the VAX, but this time in the Eunice subsystem) to find where he stored the wizard pw, then find it was encrypted, and finally to replace the original pw with my own encrypted one so I could become a wizard myself. :-) -Joe -- UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe Dayton Hudson Department Store Company ATT : (612) 375-3537 Joe Larson/MIS 1060 (standard disclaimer...) 700 on the Mall Mpls, Mn. 55402
darin@laic.UUCP (Darin Johnson) (04/01/88)
In article <1187@percival.UUCP>, baer@percival.UUCP (Ken Baer) writes: > The only other debugger I've used is UNIX dbx. SDB beats it hands down. > Happy Hacking Everyone! > -Ken Baer. Yes, it does beat dbx. However, I find dbxtool on the Suns to be about equivalent (maybe not as powerful, but easier to use). I find DEBUG on VAX/VMS even more powerful (even though it still can't figure out C strings). It has a screen mode, with optional register window (I REALLY would like this in SDB), commands aren't cryptic and may be abbreviated (in dbx I have to always alias print, step, etc in .dbxinit), as well as having lots of powerful commands. It even lets you debug Ada tasks (if you're into that sort of thing). The only real drawbacks are that you can't restart your program without leaving the debugger (ugh), and you often have to dereference C strings to print them (even then it sometimes doesn't work), and it has lots of VMS-isms. It would be nice if debugger writers for UNIX or Amiga could take a look at this debugger sometimes instead of assuming that if it does better than the dbx/sdb/adb suite that it must be pretty good. Of course, writing (or even porting) debuggers is hard enough without having to try and please everybody. Kudo's to Jim for en excellent debugger. It has helped me find lots of bugs, and even bugs that hadn't surfaced yet! -- Darin Johnson (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin) (...lll-lcc.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin) All aboard the DOOMED express!
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (04/03/88)
In a pervious posting Mr. Schwab writes: > Conclusion: Debuggers are for weenies. > > So there. Nyahh! PTHhptbhptbhtptbhpbtbhpttt!!! :-) > >[ This myopic view of debuggers is brought to you by near-sighted programmer >with a fashion sense only 400 years out of date whose only exposure to >debuggers were those available on the C-64. ] [Smiley mode ON please!] Oh man...you've been missing out! My view of C (and Pascal) programming was completely turned around (well, maybe not in the case of Pascal ;-) when I discovered such useful tools as SDB and DBX on UNIX. They've helped me out of a tight corner more than once. And even though they are awkward and somewhat buggy, I have worked on projects that would have been much much harder without a symbolic debugger (like, writing one program in two-and-a-half different languages and tying the modules together via linking). Symoblic debuggers a definite plus in my book. Your fashion sense may be a bit out-dated (although it will likely come back into style soon ;-), but I urge you to update your style in debuggers! [Smiley mode OFF please!] -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu "My cockatiels control my mind!"\{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka