glennr@cognos.uucp (Glenn Rasmussen) (03/30/88)
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but there may be some more up
to date info out there.
I'm looking for a debugger for Macintosh software. The two I've heard the most
about are TMON and 'The Debugger'. Also, I've heard rumours that MPW will have
a source level debugger in version 3.0.
I'm not out to start any holy wars, but I'd appreciate any constructive
comments people have to make about this subject, either via e-mail, or
net-news.
--
Glenn D. Rasmussen Voice: (613) 738-1440 Snails : P. O. Box 9707
Cognos Incorporated Pictures: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Dr.
Ottawa, Ontario
Bits: !decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glennr CANADA K1G 3Z4jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (04/07/88)
In article <2613@cognos.UUCP> glennr@cognos.UUCP (Glenn D. Rasmussen) writes: >I'm looking for a debugger for Macintosh software. The two I've heard the most >about are TMON and 'The Debugger'. Also, I've heard rumours that MPW will have >a source level debugger in version 3.0. TMON is my first choice. It is a complete symbolic level debugger with most of the standard debugger features (breakpoints, etc.) as well as Mac-specific features including windows (not Mac-like however), discipline (check your ROM calls for errors in the parameters such as NIL pointers, bad handles, etc.). The latest version (2.8.1) works on all the latest hardware. It's user interface isn't the greatest but it is quite usable. Support is good with people on Genie and Compuserve (but not Usenet). The Debugger is on paper a much better debugger. Lots more features then TMON including watchpoints (watch for a memory location to change), display source files while in the debugger, etc. It is also a full symbolic debugger with a true Mac-like interface. The problems with The Debugger is a) it is very buggy (although improving), b) Steve Jasik, the author, wouldn't know a user interface if it came up and clicked on him to (mis-)quote someone, and c) it is not a resident debugger and so will only work with applications (no support for DAs or INITs). Support is also good as Steve has a conference on Delphi and puts regular updates there (along with his other product MacNosy). He is also available on Compuserve. Both MPW and LightspeedC will be coming out with source level debugger's in their 3.0 releases (MPW this summer sometime for beta, LSC RSN). I imagine The Debugger will support MPW soon after that but I don't know about TMON. Lightspeed Pascal already has a source level debugger. >Glenn D. Rasmussen Voice: (613) 738-1440 Snails : P. O. Box 9707 Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (04/07/88)
In article <1466@csib.csi.UUCP> jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes: |The Debugger is on paper a much better debugger. Lots more features then One more thing about the debugger, the standard version supports only the SE and the Plus. You need to spend another $200 to get the II version Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (04/10/88)
The standard debugger that Apple offers is MacsBug, an assembly-level debugger originally written by Motorola in the late 70s. Apple has since completely rewritten it I suppose, but it is usually the most up to date with various Macintosh system software. The latest shipping version of MacsBug is 5.5, which is where I turned over the sources to a new Mr. MacsBug at Apple who has continued to improve it, with a version 6.0 in the works for MPW 3.0 later this year. TMON is a good debugger too. MacsBug and TMON have both been trading features with each other to the point that they are both quite nice. Jasik's The Debugger is quite large, but of course very comprehensive as well. A new MPW source level debugger will be coming also with MPW 3.0 later this year. It will be very large and will require multiple MB of RAM and MultiFinder to use it most effectively. So which debugger to get? I'd recommend MacsBug, but then, I wrote MacsBug. Dan Allen Author of MacsBug (I stood on the shoulders of giants like Steve Capps...; I didn't write it all)
raylau@dasys1.UUCP (Raymond Lau) (04/11/88)
In article <7900@apple.Apple.Com>, dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) writes: > TMON is a good debugger too. MacsBug and TMON have both been trading > features with each other to the point that they are both quite nice. > > Jasik's The Debugger is quite large, but of course very comprehensive > as well. > > So which debugger to get? I'd recommend MacsBug, but then, I wrote > MacsBug. > > Dan Allen > Author of MacsBug > (I stood on the shoulders of giants like Steve Capps...; I didn't write > it all) MacsBug.....simple and featureless, but believe it or not, it gets the job done a lot of the time. Best of all it's auto-installing and does it quickly. (I have it loaded all the time.) TMON - Good for most other jobs where MacsBug may not be enough. Though I rarely touch it. The Debugger - very nice... Hogs memory, won't work under MF (Bec. Apple won't provide the info needed by Jasik) and a few features not yet implemented. Once these are fixed.....well.... I'll tell it then!! -Ray (raylau@dasys1.UUCP)
dudek@csri.toronto.edu (Gregory Dudek) (04/13/88)
MacsBug seems to take a lot of flak in this group and it's my
impression that it's rather unjustified. There's no doubt that
symbolic debuggers such as UNIX's dbx are nice to have, but for
that large number of cases where the compiler doesn't provide enough
assist. MacsBug seems to do a very commendable job. It may not
provide fancy windows & such, but for a dirty job like assembly-level
debugging and tracing who really needs 'em. Since I recently upgraded
from MacsBug 1.? to 5.5, I can't see any justification for shelling
out for TMON or The Debugger.
It is true, hwoever, that MacsBug doesn't seem to do a lot of
handholding -- you better know what you're doing. Are TMON or
TheDebugger really that different that way?
Among MacsBug's nice features are that it's small enough that you can keep
it resident *all the time* and that it's compatible with just
about everything. The one thing I'd really like to have is automatic
"decompilation" of trap parameters but it just ain't worth $150 or the memory
burden imposed by the other offerings.
Greg Dudek
--
Dept. of Computer Science (vision group) University of Toronto
Reasonable mailers: dudek@ai.toronto.edu
Other UUCP: {uunet,ihnp4,decvax,linus,pyramid,
dalcs,watmath,garfield,ubc-vision,calgary}!utai!dudek
ARPA: user%ai.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net