On Jul 6, 12:13 am, Alex Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 5, 5:46 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Kay Schluehr wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 8:12 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) wrote: > > > > > Python is simply easier than C++; you might > > > > well find that a debugger, for example, doesn't feel as essential > > > > as it is for you with C++. > > > > That's what I love most about the Python community. Whenever there is > > > just a non-standard, platform-dependent or crappy implementation of a > > > feature you get told that you don't need it. > > > A fairly nice debugger is standard and built-in to the regular Python > > distribution on all platforms. > > > But 95% of what a debugger is used for IME is getting a stack trace-- > > in Python (or Java or Ruby or most modern languages) you get that > > automatically, and the debugger is nowhere near as useful as it is in > > C or C++. > > I am a Python newbie, but unfortunately I don't agree with that. For > me having a debugger helped understand very quickly the flow > in the libraries for which otherwise I would have had to navigate > through code (which once again is not always easy without a good IDE).
You don't have to be unfortune about it. As you see there is no consensus. I don't even know how Java developers would respond to the assertion that the debugger is halfway irrelevant because they can read the stacktraces ( A real C programmer and real man can read core dumps. So what? ) Java is often considered as Blub but it doesn't at least deny progress in tool development of the last 20 years. > But this is just a newbie opinion :-), I don't think so. BTW if you want to take a glimpse on the future of "dynamic" languages you might also checkout this paper: http://lamp.epfl.ch/~mcdirmid/mcdirmid07live.pdf Kay -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list