On Jan 22, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Neil Mix wrote: > I also want to make clear: this isn't about debugging code that uses > PTC intentionally -- that tradeoff is up to the developer. This is > about the novice coder who finds a stack trace on a production system > from code that he doesn't own which just happens to be invoking PTC > implicitly.
I've already copped to low expectations about current-era debuggers, and it is possible the same dismal view applies to logging traces, at least on my part. Having to deal with a stack backtrace where you (n00b or l33t, doesn't matter) have to hop around in 3, or 30, source files to see how the heck control flowed from function f to g when f doesn't call g, is Not Fun. The lack of stack traces in ECMA-262, and anything like Python's much better backtrace support in JS implementations, may be remedied, and then we'll all feel PTC pain. But why won't we feel it, as trace-readers, just as much when the PTCs were explicit? This, I don't follow. The programmer and the debugger-driver are often very different people, in general skills, familiarity with the source at hand, etc. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
