Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: Oh, come on!  You don't seriously want to call gdb a good debugger.
: Debugging with printf is better!  Any high-level IDE based debugger wilkl
: beat it in usability with sucess rates easily ten times hiugher than when
: using gdb.  For $10K I can arrange a usability test (actually, i might be
: able to get it for free...), if you would like.  Lets compare gdb with say
: the CodeWarrior debugger on Windows.  If the total success rate of debug
: tasks by programmers four who never used either debugger before, four who
: used only gdb before and four who used only CodeWarrior before is not better
: with CodeWarrior I donate, say US$500 to Unicef, if the CodeWarrior debugger
: is better you donate the amount.

  This just says that the Codewarrior debugger is better than gdb. I have
no objections to that. I have never used that debugger, but if you say it's
better, I have no reason to not to believe you.
  However, the fact that there exist debuggers that are better than gdb
doesn't make the latter "bad".
  It also depends on the definition of "good". I wasn't thinking about
"easy-to-use graphical interface" when I said "good". I was thinking that it
does what it is supposed to.
  (In the same way one could claim that LaTeX is not good because it has
no graphical user interface and it's not WYSIWYG. Here the definition of
"good" is not the quality of the result, but ease of use. In my opinion
LaTeX is excellent, but I don't base my opinion on graphical interfaces.)

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message