3 ms·
> I never saw it like that in the days I had to change Borland, Zortech and VS experience by UNIX one in the late 90's, I'm not sure I understand what you mean
by webkike 10y ago
> I never saw it like that in the days I had to change Borland, Zortech and VS experience by UNIX one in the late 90's,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Can you explain?
Also, what did you not like about the experience?
- vidarh 10y agogdb is ok if your needs are simple, and great if you have very complex needs where your need the scripting etc. But it's awful if you want to e.g. quickly step through a bunch of assembler and get a thorough overview of registers + stack frames + dereferencing random chunks of memory. You can do all of it, and with emacs you can do all of it in buffers, but it feels terribly clunky to me, coming from e.g. Amiga assembly IDE's like AsmOne, that while overall more primitive than gdb, has good defaults for the UI that makes the information most people want very easily available. Emacs + gdb is like getting your debugger delivered as flatpack and having to assemble it yourself. Great when finally get it just the way you want it, but the learning curve is horrible.
- pjmlp 10y agoVidarh already explained it quite good. Also there was no support to display structures graphically (ddd could do it though). Nowadays modern graphical debuggers also provide a very nice set of features to debug multi-core code.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoDon't many GDB frontends provide this, however?
- pjmlp 10y agoBack then it was only DDD in regards to data structures. I mean converting a struct into a visual tree, navigable between nodes, think UML like. As for parallel debugging I am not aware of any front-end with the same feature set as modern IDE debuggers.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoOkay. Well, then, now we know.