Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
SORRY to dis-agree with you. Compuware does HAVE a debugger for C (Xped). And it has been out for awhile as well. Robert Galambos CIPP/C Compuware Senior Technical Specialist IBM Certified Solutions Expert - DB2 UDB for OS/390 Database Administration Certified Information Privacy Professional/Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 905 886 7000 Toll Free: +1 800 263 7189 Fax: +1 905 886 7023 Quebec: +1 877-281-1888 Compuware Canada Service is our best product Les renseignements contenus dans le présent message électronique sont confidentiels et concernent exclusivement le(s) destinataire(s) désigné(s). Il est strictement interdit de distribuer ou de copier ce message. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez répondre par courriel à l'expéditeur et effacer ou détruire toutes les copies du présent message. The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Ross Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers >Hmmm, I find it interesting that I have two votes for IBMs Debug Tool, >which is completely unusable to me. We write C++ programs here. My main >app is something like 200 object modules. > >When I write a "Hello world" test app, fire it up under IBMs debug >tool, it works great. When I try to debug our actual application, >either the size or complexity is such that it just hacks up hairballs and dies. > >So I have filled my sources full of DEBUGX lines that I turn and off by >module, and debug in batch via what turn out to be CEEMSG's. > >So are there viable alternatives to IBMs debug tool, or is this the >one? If this is the one, I will have to give it another go so that I >can explain in detail how it behaves badly. Sounds like a IBM needs to improve Debug Tool for debugging C++ code! Have you tried reporting these problems to us (IBM) and getting us to fix them? Debug Tool was not so good in the 1990s, but since we have improved it (hookless debugging, most of the features of other debuggers) we have gotten a tremendous number of users (at least for COBOL, PL/I and C, not sure about C++) and have solved many problems. Debug tool changed dramatically between 2000 and 2004 especially, and many customers tell us it is better than the rest now! By the way, I think IBM has the only debugger for IBM C and C++ on z/OS. Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
On 16 Apr 2008 07:16:33 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don Leahy) wrote: >> Every once in a while, we have time to waste - pulling up debugger >> tools is as good of a way to fill that time as any. >> > >If a debugging tool is seen as a "waste of time" it is usually because >the installation hasn't put enough effort into tailoring it for local >use. Too often on mainframe environments, tool use needs to be mandated before sufficient people will learn it, and adjust it and the environment to each other. This is a big reason why other programmers think of us as dinosaurs. (But dinosaurs were very, very successful - it is unlikely that humans (Java) will last nearly as long). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:03:09 -0700, Paul Knudsen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Every once in a while someone pulls up a debugger tool, intending on > >>having that skill in our resume. But when we actually need to debug, > >>we go back to the old way - displays in the code. > > > >Wasting time good for job security. > > Every once in a while, we have time to waste - pulling up debugger > tools is as good of a way to fill that time as any. > If a debugging tool is seen as a "waste of time" it is usually because the installation hasn't put enough effort into tailoring it for local use. When we installed IBM Debug Tool in our shop, we altered all of our standard compile procs to support the TEST option and to link in the CEEUOPT module when needed. All the programmer has to do is select the TEST option on a panel and provide the VTAM LU of his debug terminal (We are on release 5.1 of DT, a bit back level.I understand later releases of DT have done away with this requirement). We never use the IBM supplied ISPF dialog to set up our debug sessions. I am not knocking IBM, but their dialog, of necessity, has to be generic, and like all generic tools requires a fair amount of effort to use. We also provided each developer with a private DB2 data base for unit testing/debugging, and developed some in house tools to help them maintain them. This addresses data base contention concerns cause by people sitting at a breakpoint. Finally, we renovated our rarely used BTS environment to accommodate all of these changes. It is the programmer who puts Display messages in the code that is "wasting time" -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:03:09 -0700, Paul Knudsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Every once in a while someone pulls up a debugger tool, intending on >>having that skill in our resume. But when we actually need to debug, >>we go back to the old way - displays in the code. > >Wasting time good for job security. Every once in a while, we have time to waste - pulling up debugger tools is as good of a way to fill that time as any. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
At 4/14/2008 04:57 PM, Tom Ross wrote: By the way, I think IBM has the only debugger for IBM C and C++ on z/OS. Not for much longer. Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com 736 Fox Hollow RoadVOICE:540-456-8536 Afton, VA 22920FAX: 540-456-6658 Coming soon: c/XDC for C and C++ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
>Hmmm, I find it interesting that I have two votes for IBMs Debug Tool, which >is completely unusable to me. We write C++ programs here. My main app is >something like 200 object modules. > >When I write a "Hello world" test app, fire it up under IBMs debug tool, it >works great. When I try to debug our actual application, either the size or >complexity is such that it just hacks up hairballs and dies. > >So I have filled my sources full of DEBUGX lines that I turn and off by >module, and debug in batch via what turn out to be CEEMSG's. > >So are there viable alternatives to IBMs debug tool, or is this the one? If >this is the one, I will have to give it another go so that I can explain in >detail how it behaves badly. Sounds like a IBM needs to improve Debug Tool for debugging C++ code! Have you tried reporting these problems to us (IBM) and getting us to fix them? Debug Tool was not so good in the 1990s, but since we have improved it (hookless debugging, most of the features of other debuggers) we have gotten a tremendous number of users (at least for COBOL, PL/I and C, not sure about C++) and have solved many problems. Debug tool changed dramatically between 2000 and 2004 especially, and many customers tell us it is better than the rest now! By the way, I think IBM has the only debugger for IBM C and C++ on z/OS. Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
On 14 Apr 2008 06:29:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John) wrote: >> Every once in a while someone pulls up a debugger tool, intending on >> having that skill in our resume. But when we actually need to debug, >> we go back to the old way - displays in the code. > >Hum, I know for a fact that our people use Xpeditor, especially in CICS. >How? Because they complain any time something doesn't work the way they >think that it should. We don't have Xpeditor nor CICS. That might be significant. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:35:07 -0600, David Logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I was wondering if there are any function debuggers on z/OS these days. >Our shop is currently using z/OS 1.5, and the IBM provided LE debugger >(via the LE TEST options) is completely unusable for us. It always has >been. > >What suggestions might other people have? > Xpediter does not too bad a job. They do have a module to debug C code. Is Simon and Oliver still around. I remember having evaluated this 15 odd years ago. Don't remember why we didn't retain it. There is also Intertest. Not bad at all. I am sure there must be some others as well. Have you tried Google? Cheers, Jantje. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:26 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers > > > Every once in a while someone pulls up a debugger tool, intending on > having that skill in our resume. But when we actually need to debug, > we go back to the old way - displays in the code. Hum, I know for a fact that our people use Xpeditor, especially in CICS. How? Because they complain any time something doesn't work the way they think that it should. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
Every once in a while someone pulls up a debugger tool, intending on having that skill in our resume. But when we actually need to debug, we go back to the old way - displays in the code. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
David Logan wrote: >Apologies of a sort about this email. My outlook ... Accepted of course, outlook should be renamed 'Look Out! Buggy Software' ... :) >I use Windows Vista with Office 2007 ... I *strongly* recommend *against* it if anyone is thinking about it ... Cool! That is one of the best recommendations I saw on IBM-MAIN! :) I'm living on xp with office 2003. Yep, 5 year old software, I know. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
Apologies of a sort about this email. My outlook ... I use Windows Vista with Office 2007 ... I *strongly* recommend *against* it if anyone is thinking about it ... Anyway, my Outlook likes to split groups of messages up, and I missed the large discussion before I sent this. So let me now go read the rest of the responses. David Logan Manager of Product Development, Pitney Bowes Software, Inc. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Logan Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:18 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers Hmmm, I find it interesting that I have two votes for IBMs Debug Tool, which is completely unusable to me. We write C++ programs here. My main app is something like 200 object modules. When I write a "Hello world" test app, fire it up under IBMs debug tool, it works great. When I try to debug our actual application, either the size or complexity is such that it just hacks up hairballs and dies. So I have filled my sources full of DEBUGX lines that I turn and off by module, and debug in batch via what turn out to be CEEMSG's. So are there viable alternatives to IBMs debug tool, or is this the one? If this is the one, I will have to give it another go so that I can explain in detail how it behaves badly. David Logan Manager of Product Development, Pitney Bowes Software, Inc. http://centrus.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Leahy Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:24 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM, David Logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering if there are any function debuggers on z/OS these days. > Our shop is currently using z/OS 1.5, and the IBM provided LE debugger > (via the LE TEST options) is completely unusable for us. It always has > been. > > What suggestions might other people have? > We use IBM's Debug Tool for all of our COBOL debugging. Some of its competitors (Xpeditor for example) are more slick and have more features, but Debug Tool was priced right and has enough features to keep the programmers happy. We were formerly a MicroFocus Cobol shop, but we had allowed that tool kit to degrade over the years until it became less and less useful. At the end, we found it was cheaper to move to Debug Tool than to upgrade our MicroFocus. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
Hmmm, I find it interesting that I have two votes for IBMs Debug Tool, which is completely unusable to me. We write C++ programs here. My main app is something like 200 object modules. When I write a "Hello world" test app, fire it up under IBMs debug tool, it works great. When I try to debug our actual application, either the size or complexity is such that it just hacks up hairballs and dies. So I have filled my sources full of DEBUGX lines that I turn and off by module, and debug in batch via what turn out to be CEEMSG's. So are there viable alternatives to IBMs debug tool, or is this the one? If this is the one, I will have to give it another go so that I can explain in detail how it behaves badly. David Logan Manager of Product Development, Pitney Bowes Software, Inc. http://centrus.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Leahy Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:24 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM, David Logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering if there are any function debuggers on z/OS these days. > Our shop is currently using z/OS 1.5, and the IBM provided LE debugger > (via the LE TEST options) is completely unusable for us. It always has > been. > > What suggestions might other people have? > We use IBM's Debug Tool for all of our COBOL debugging. Some of its competitors (Xpeditor for example) are more slick and have more features, but Debug Tool was priced right and has enough features to keep the programmers happy. We were formerly a MicroFocus Cobol shop, but we had allowed that tool kit to degrade over the years until it became less and less useful. At the end, we found it was cheaper to move to Debug Tool than to upgrade our MicroFocus. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35 PM, David Logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering if there are any function debuggers on z/OS these days. > Our shop is currently using z/OS 1.5, and the IBM provided LE debugger > (via the LE TEST options) is completely unusable for us. It always has > been. > > What suggestions might other people have? > We use IBM's Debug Tool for all of our COBOL debugging. Some of its competitors (Xpeditor for example) are more slick and have more features, but Debug Tool was priced right and has enough features to keep the programmers happy. We were formerly a MicroFocus Cobol shop, but we had allowed that tool kit to degrade over the years until it became less and less useful. At the end, we found it was cheaper to move to Debug Tool than to upgrade our MicroFocus. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
I was wondering if there are any function debuggers on z/OS these days. Our shop is currently using z/OS 1.5, and the IBM provided LE debugger (via the LE TEST options) is completely unusable for us. It always has been. What suggestions might other people have? When I was still working full-time, my last project was to install IBM's Debug Tool, to replace another tool that cost about 10 times as much (And who will remain nameless!) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
FW: Workable Mainframe Debuggers
I was wondering if there are any function debuggers on z/OS these days. Our shop is currently using z/OS 1.5, and the IBM provided LE debugger (via the LE TEST options) is completely unusable for us. It always has been. What suggestions might other people have? --- David Logan Manager of Product Development, Pitney Bowes Software, Inc. http://centrus.com 4750 Walnut St, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 W: (720) 564-3056 C: (303) 818-8222 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
