Re: What is wrong with Ada?



On Apr 11, 5:40 am, Jean-Pierre Rosen <r...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chad R. Meiners a écrit :> I disagree. Sometimes trace messages add line noise and maintaince
requirements to the code base,

Huh?
Trace messages are put just to check an hypothesis, and removed
immediately afterwards. Certainly not kept in configuration, and limited
to a couple of lines!

I always keep important hypothesis (trace statements) around during
development because a particular trace sequence for a particular bug
does not ensure full coverage of the the algorithm. I have needed the
same trace statement more than once at different times in some
software life cycles.

and it is much easier to trace through
the algorithm step by step (using conditional breaks when necessary).

My experience is that recompiling (generally a single body where you
added the trace) is much faster than starting the debugger, setting
breakpoints, skipping lots of unnecessary breaks, and so on.

And my experience is that starting a debugger is faster than inserting
some verbose trace statements, and then recompiling. If you are
skipping a lot of unnecessary breaks, you are not using the debugger
properly.

Moreover, a trace message gives you exactly the information you need,
while interpreting a particular (complicated) structure from a debugger
is generally quite difficult. Did you ever try to understand an ASIS
"Element" ?

I completely agree. For <b>some</b> cases, traces messages provide
the right information in the most efficient and effective way.
However, I do not accept that trace messages are <b>always</b> a
better way to find bugs than using a debugger.

.