Upon further thought, I should qualify my previous statement about not using debuggers. I _should_ have said that I have not used a debugger to *step through* code in years. Of course I know how to use debuggers and of course I take advantage of what ever exception analysis tools are provided by a given debugger when one is available, but I do not use debuggers as a tool for stepping through code line by line. I have met far too many programmers who are far too reliant on debuggers and have no idea how to utilize good old-fashioned, time-tested trouble-shooting techniques.
I think the crux of my disagreement with your statement is that just because someone is not using a debugger, that does not make them less competent nor does it make them any less efficient. Debuggers are simply another tool for trouble-shooting, not necessarily the best tool, and definitely not only tool that should be considered valid. Again, just my .02. RC -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Collins Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] CFEXIT or CFABORT within CFFUNCTION And many more people (including many experts) would also disagree with you. I haven't used a debugger in years, and it hasn't even come close to hindering me. In fact, by not relying on a debugger, I have not tied my development skills to a particular platform or IDE, and am still capable of writing and debugging perfectly executing programs using nothing but a text editor and compiler of choice. Some more relevant opinions: http://weblogs.java.net/pub/wlg/743 http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=67 My .02 Roland -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vince Bonfanti Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] CFEXIT or CFABORT within CFFUNCTION I couldn't disagree with you more. Any Java programmer who would choose to use System.out.println instead of Eclipse's (or IntelliJ's, or JBuilder's) integrated debugger wouldn't be employed by New Atlanta for very long. One, they would be too slow and inefficient to keep up with the rest of the team. Two, if they're not skilled enough to know how to use a debugger, then they're not skilled enough to work on our products. One of the development techniques we encourage is to always step through your code with the debugger the first time you run it. You'd be surprised how often code gives you the correct result, but actually does it in a way differently than you intended. A lot of latent bugs are avoided this way. But that's just my opinion. Vince P.S. Don't base your opinion of CFML step debuggers on CF5 Studio. One bad implementation that's difficult to use effectively doesn't mean they all are. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barney Boisvert > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] CFEXIT or CFABORT within CFFUNCTION > > > What if I could offer you a step debugger instead that > would allow you > > to set breakpoints, examine variable scopes anywhere in the call > > stack, etc.? > > I'd probably say "don't waste your time". CF used to have an > integrated debugger, and they dropped it in CFMX. CFABORT > might be crude, but it's very effective. Kind of like using > System.out.println() over Eclipse's integrated debugger. > Debuggers are hard to use effectively, and they take time > away from development. Not say that they're not very > valuable in some situations, but most of the time all they do > is get in the way. > > Of course, that's 100% personal opinion. Crude illustration > of the concept: > > "I need to kill someone. Should I bludgen them with a > baseball bat, or should I carefully sedate them with > <something>, bring them to an operating room, anesthetize > them, make an incision into a vein of choice, and let them > bleed out (while unconcious, so they don't feel anything), > making sure to keep everything clean." > > Cheers, > barneyb > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
