[ODE] Latest Commit

Tue Nov 1 18:12:07 MST 2005

> To name the source-level debuggers that have a gui and support c++,
> use ddd with gdb or xxgdb with gdb -- that's if you want to trace

I'm sorry: I said DO NOT USE GDB, because I've already tried the 
wrappers and they all suck, because they all use GDB.

Anything that uses GDB suffers the GDB problems, which include but are 
not limited to very slow single-stepping, slow printing of stack frame 
locals, piss-poor handling of wchar_t strings, and random crashing when 
using "set print obj on".

 > the truth is I rarely use it because for tracing through program
 > execution something needs to be really wrong.

That sounds like a poor software engineering choice, possibly forced 
upon you by crappy tools? Let me explain: When I write code, I put a 
breakpoint right next to the new code, each time. When I first hit that 
code, I trace through it, just to verify that the control flow and data 
management is what I expected it to be. You wouldn't believe how many 
stupid bugs I find in a minute this way; stupid bugs that would have 
taken much longer if I had only run into their side effects.

 > Windows is probably here to stay, and so is Linux.  Perhaps a good
 > constructive thing to come out of our discussion is that ODE should 
run on
 > both.  Having compiled most of my programs for both platfoms I've
 > noticed that the two compilers often complain about different things
 > thus compiling with both would make the code more solid.

That already happens. The current rant is against the notion that 
autotools would make ODE better, or even cause more contribution to ODE 
source code. My argument is that it would do nothing of the sort in net 
aggregate effect.

Cheers,

			/ h+

> 
> Thanks,
> -D
> 
> 
> Jon Watte (ODE) wrote:
> 
>>
>> Please, name one source-level debugger that runs on Linux and supports 
>> C++, that's not based on GDB. It doesn't matter if it costs money, as 
>> long as you can ACTUALLY purchase it. (I haven't found one)
>>
>> My point is that a large set of the ODE community uses MSVC, and an 
>> overwhelming majority of game developers use MSVC in daily work, 
>> probably because of its good productivity features. If you choose to 
>> use any tool set to build ODE that's not well integrated with MSVC, 
>> you will alienate this community, and you will likely push ODE into 
>> the fringes.
>>
>>
>> I worked on UNIX implementations twenty years ago, so I know a fair 
>> bit about the wonders of UNIX. Now, regarding UNIX credibility, I also 
>> have a rant about how to use make correctly (as opposed to 99% of UNIX 
>> build processes out there :-)
>>
>> http://www.mindcontrol.org/~hplus/makesample.html
>>
>> Just sayin'...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>             / h+
>>
>> Doron Tal wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have time to waste on this topic, but I'd like to just say 
>>> briefly
>>> that if you're just talking about gdb you seem to be missing on
>>> the rest of the programming tools available on Unix systems.  Unix
>>> was developed by programmers for programmers, that's why
>>> it has hundreds of tools available.  The simple automation achievable
>>> using makefiles and shell scripts has still not been surpassed by
>>> Windows.  Windows is a non-standard, proprietary, platform
>>> that's used only by people who can afford it.  Windows also has
>>> had a historical tendency to stray from standards -- standard C++
>>> for example -- and this is a huge problem.  Your rant on gdb is
>>> misinformed -- you don't seem to be aware of the many GUIs
>>> available as front end to gdb, or of nifty features such as gdb
>>> attaching to a running process.  You need to be fair if you rant,
>>> and consider the multitude of tools that have become available,
>>> like kcachegrind and the rest of the valgrind suite, ddd or xxgdb,
>>> kdevelop.  Together, these tools make Unix infinitely better as a
>>> development environment in comparison with Windows.
>>> I was a Windows developer for years as part of my job, but have
>>> always preferred a linux system when my boss did not force me
>>> to use it.  Unix is plainly speaking much more standard, and much
>>> more reachable to a greater number of programmers.  Until today,
>>> I compile all my programs with both Windows VS6 and g++ and
>>> I believe the Unix suite of hundreds of tools is far superior.
>>>
>>> Now if you're programming games that you only want running under
>>> windows, then I can understand why you'd use Microsoft, but I suspect
>>> this strategy will be limiting, as Windows slowly fades away from being
>>> the primary OS of this world.
>>> -D
>>>
>>> Jon Watte (ODE) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What my point is is that, for me, and everyone I've worked with, the 
>>>> MSVC debugger is so much more productive than MinGW/Cygwin that 
>>>> anyone trying the latter is just wasting their money. I can't really 
>>>> take anyone saying that GDB is more useable than MSVC for general 
>>>> application development and debugging seriously. (Each of the tools 
>>>> has some tragic flaw, for sure, but GDB has more of them and a much 
>>>> less responsive UI)
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't care less about the politics. Well, actually, I do care a 
>>>> little bit: read my rant about UNIX debugging at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mindcontrol.org/~hplus/misc/unix-debugger.html
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>             / h+
>>>>
>>>> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> MinGW/Cygwin isn't really an option for serious development on 
>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AHEM.  Or so The Man would like you to believe.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ODE mailing list
>>>> ODE at q12.org
>>>> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ODE mailing list
>>> ODE at q12.org
>>> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 