phil@mit-amt (Phil Sohn) (01/19/89)
Could someone give me a brief description of SADE? How does it compare to the THINK debugger? Does SADE use a "Mac-like interface" or is it more in the spirit of MPW? Since SADE works with both Pascal and C (I guess the Asm also?) most of the smarts are in the compiler. Does anyone know if I can get a description of the info the compiler generates for SADE? phil@ems.media.mit.edu
nopuklic@ndsuvax.UUCP (Blayne Puklich) (01/20/89)
In article <3494@mit-amt> phil@mit-amt (Phil Sohn) writes: > > Could someone give me a brief description of SADE? How >does it compare to the THINK debugger? Does SADE use a "Mac-like >interface" or is it more in the spirit of MPW? Well, even MPW uses a "Mac-like" interface... Anyways, SADE does have a "WorkSheet" exactly like MPW in which you can type commands. It has menus that look almost exactly like MPW's: It has Find, Mark, and Window. It also supports scripts like MPW, however, the command language is different in many places (it's debugger oriented, of course). Compared to THINK C's debugger, I'd have to say that SADE is quite a bit more difficult to learn. However, I think that SADE for me will be much easier to use, since I can customize it exactly like I want it, for each project that I work on. SADE's command language is about as difficult to learn as the MPW command language. SADE can show quite a bit more that the LSC debugger. It'll show you the heap in a neat way, it'll show you all the FCBs in the system, it will show you all the resource in the system in a neat way. It does quite a few more things (the programmers even stuck in a factorial function). All in all, both are nice. If you have a spare 5 mb, go for SADE. If you only have 2mb, LSC debugger is the route to go. I've got both here (I'm staring at them both now also), and I like them both. BTW, SADE is standalone, which means that if other compiler writers can make their compilers spit out SADE symbolic information, you could use SADE with them. I don't know where to find the format of the .SYM file yet, though. ||+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|| || Blayne Puklich nopuklic@Plains.NoDak.EDU "I think I'm going || || NDSU Student ACM nopuklic@ndsuvax.BITNET bald..." || || Chairperson NU087763@NDSUVM1.BITNET -- Rush, from Caress || || North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND of Steel, 1975 || || || || "Everyone should have a Corvette, I think." || ||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (01/20/89)
In article <3494@mit-amt> phil@mit-amt (Phil Sohn) writes: > Could someone give me a brief description of SADE? How >does it compare to the THINK debugger? Does SADE use a "Mac-like >interface" or is it more in the spirit of MPW? > Since SADE works with both Pascal and C (I guess the Asm also?) >most of the smarts are in the compiler. Does anyone know if I can get >a description of the info the compiler generates for SADE? SADE uses the same shell technique that MPW does. As such, it doesn't really compare with the THINK debugger. The features are pretty much the same. However, while THINK is easier to use, SADE is scriptable and potentially more powerful. The formats for the SADE object records generated by the compilers and linker are documented in Appendix H of the MPW 3.0 manual. Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "You can do what you want to me, but leave my computer alone!"
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (Jerry D Whitnell) (01/22/89)
>SADE can show quite a bit more that the LSC debugger. It'll show you the >heap in a neat way, it'll show you all the FCBs in the system, it will >show you all the resource in the system in a neat way. It does quite a >few more things (the programmers even stuck in a factorial function). There is a commerical product Debugger's Assistant that provides all of this (except for the factorial function :-) for LSC and LSP. It is a desk accessory and so can is available at any time. If you want more information on it, email me and I'll send you details and ordering information. Disclaimer: I wrote Debugger's Assistant and I market it, so I'm very prejudiced about it. Jerry Whitnell BC Software -- Jerry Whitnell Several Species of Small Furry jwhitnell@cup.portal.com Animals Gathered Together in a ..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell Cave and Grooving with a PICT.
breek@byuvax.bitnet (01/22/89)
In addition to the preceding comments, let me say that SADE has one of the neatest "About..." dialogs I have ever seen. --Lyle D. Gunderson (mere student)
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (01/23/89)
In article <346breek@byuvax.bitnet> breek@byuvax.bitnet writes: >In addition to the preceding comments, let me say that SADE has one of the >neatest "About..." dialogs I have ever seen. The MPW 3.0 Shell has a really cute one too -- it's 74K (a little under 74,000 bytes) of code, in a tool called "AboutBox" that gets invoked when you choose About MPW... I threw it away. No about box is worth 74K of my precious disk space. --Rich Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (01/23/89)
In article <1060@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: |In article <346breek@byuvax.bitnet> breek@byuvax.bitnet writes: |>In addition to the preceding comments, let me say that SADE has one of the |>neatest "About..." dialogs I have ever seen. | | The MPW 3.0 Shell has a really cute one too -- it's 74K (a little |under 74,000 bytes) of code, in a tool called "AboutBox" that gets invoked |when you choose About MPW... | | I threw it away. No about box is worth 74K of my precious disk space. Hmmm. My 3.0B1 came with nothing of the sort, and the About box is just a picture (fancier than the old beach ball, more like the drawing on the cover of MPW manuals). Maybe you developers got an earlier (or a later) version of MPW 3 ... Also while the SADE About box takes some amount of extra code, there is no ancillary tool to run that either, that I could see. /JBL = = UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (01/24/89)
In article <34937@bbn.COM> levin@BBN.COM (Joel B Levin) writes: >Hmmm. My 3.0B1 came with nothing of the sort, and the About box is >just a picture (fancier than the old beach ball, more like the drawing >on the cover of MPW manuals). Maybe you developers got an earlier (or >a later) version of MPW 3 ... The version I have is allegedly the final version; the about box is a toolbox, and little pieces fly up out of it to assemble into a disk, which then gets spray-painted by a little airbrush. Like I said - real cute, but not worth it. R. Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp. Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305 Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.
breek@byuvax.bitnet (01/24/89)
Rich- Think of those disk-space-expensive About... doodads as gift wrapping. They are neat when you first get the package, but expendible. I will keep mine intact, but then, I keep used gift wrapping paper, too... -Lyle
erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (12/07/89)
In article <1890@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> d6maca@]2;hacke1: /tmp]1;hacke1dtek.chalmers.se (Martin Carlberg) writes: > >I have a IIci and using SADE as a debugger. It's very good. > Well I dunno about the IIci but as far as SADE goes IMHO it's a piece of crap. I'm using a IIcx and it is so *SLOW*. It's also unfriendly, unintuitive and just doesn't work properly. My project involves two sets of sources in different folders. If two files have the same name this really screws SADE. Also when highlighting code SADE frequently highlights the wrong text. Compared to the debuggers that SYMANTEC produce all I can say is SADE sucks! If it wasn't for the fact that Apple are paying for this project I would have thrown out MPW long ago. Tony Cunningham -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk "If the thunder don't get ya then the lightnin' will."
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (12/11/89)
In article <1332@castle.ed.ac.uk> erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: |In article <1890@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> d6maca@]2;hacke1: /tmp]1;hacke1dtek.chalmers.se (Martin Carlberg) writes: |> |>I have a IIci and using SADE as a debugger. It's very good. |> | Well I dunno about the IIci but as far as SADE goes IMHO it's a |piece of crap. I'm using a IIcx and it is so *SLOW*. . . . I have had err, well, a sneak look at the SADE that has been released with MPW 3.1-Beta, and in my opinion it seemed much faster than SADE 1.0. Thank goodness. I understand the comments about its lack of intuitiveness and unfriendliness, but I suspect it's a case of "to get to know it is to like it"-- when I have finally had the opportunity to use it for real over a period of time, AND to customize it with some appropriate scripts, I think I'll like it a lot more. It does come with some scripts to help those who know the Macsbug commands (which I don't very well, since I use and like TMON). I have no familiarity with the THINK C debugger (though I may break down and get TC 4 one day for its class library), so I can't compare it to SADE. I have of course heard very good things about it. /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617)873-3463 |