4 ms·
"The State of Linux Debuggers". This is ... not that. Perhaps "One inexperienced user on an uncustomized system briefly trying several default-configuration fr
by ajarmst 6y ago
"The State of Linux Debuggers". This is ... not that. Perhaps "One inexperienced user on an uncustomized system briefly trying several default-configuration front-ends (some of which are apparently malconfigured or missing dependencies) to GDB, without resorting to any documentation whatsoever, and gauging them solely on layout and visual appeal."
Pro-tip. When working with a new debugging environment "I haven't found a way to display the backtrace, list local variables or view memory" would be where most would look at documentation or seek advice, not move on to the next tool. That the author didn't is more of a comment on the reviewer than the product.
- kdtop 6y agoI feel this review is overly harsh. I felt the author was showing that many of the packages were not intuitive and were often buggy. He was showing me what I could expect when I might try them. When one expects one's users to RTFM, they've already lost.
- ajarmst 6y agoThat's possibly fair---I am by nature sometimes overly brusque. But I will say that debugging on Linux is hardly a neophyte's realm. Even properly using the debugger in purposefully less obtuse interfaces like Visual Studio is non-trivial and generally requires the assistance of walkthroughs, manuals, and colleagues/instructors.
- jjav 6y ago> When one expects one's users to RTFM, they've already lost. A debugger is a somewhat advanced tool, studying the documentation is absolutely required. It's a CNC machine, not a screwdriver. (Agreed that gdb could use better documentation.)
- howtofly 6y agoCan't agree more. As a longtime user of Eclipse CDT on Ubuntu Desktop， I've not seen the kind of bugs mentioned in the article for more than five years.