From: Javaman59 Date: 2006-04-18T09:56:33+09:00 Subject: Re: Newbie's Ruby IDE Editor Roundup, April 2006 Kev Jackson wrote: > > > No a debugger isn't important for an agile approach. Unit tests which > can be automated are of much more value than a breakpointed debugger > IMO. Thanks for the info. I'm always happy to be corrected :) > Using graphical debugging (breakpoints, step-through/over etc) > is slow and not worth the time it takes to learn them. When I had nine years experience I also rarely used a debugger, for the same reasons. I eventually *had* to start using a debugger to track very difficult problems, and once I had made that investiment, I started to include it as a normal tool, for... 1. understanding other people's code. 2. I've already used the ArachoRuby debugger in my attempts to understand the Ruby language. 3. to track down deep and difficult problems (most of which have been related to memory management, in languages such as c++). 4. To quickly partition a problem. If the input/output of a large section of code is wrong, then I'll often do a binary chop with the debugger to quickly find where it's going wrong. David Corbin wrote: >You twice mention 'reading the stack trace' in Java. That only helps if you >HAVE a stack trace. Many bugs don't involve exceptions. Amen! > Either way, it's a smell that something is too > large and complex. But it does help. hmmmm... you've got me there.. using Visual Studio and VC++ (or VB), tends to push me towards a compile/link/test/debug cycle, rather than unit testing. I'm looking forward to seeing whether Ruby, RoR, and a "lighter" environment (Arachno and bash), changes things. Kev Jackson wrote: > many of the java developers here who came over from VB still use the > debugger in Eclipse, but it's much much slower ... and without the > test, how can you prove that that the bug has been squashed? Good observation. See also mine and David's above. :) Cheers, Javaman -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.