3 ms·

Worth noting that debuggers, which frequently have complex interfaces, are generally much better suited to GUI applications. Having a good debugger integrated

Worth noting that debuggers, which frequently have complex interfaces, are generally much better suited to GUI applications. Having a good debugger integrated with my code editor is basically the reason I use an IDE instead of vim. Stuff like Vimspector exist but are way more work to use vs. a GUI equivalent.

cassepipe 4y ago
The gdb TUI with a simple config and a simple readline config from a terminal has personally done wonders for me. I get vi mode, tab completion, syntax coloring, a colored prompt and really all I could ask for. I have aliased gdb to "gdb - q -ex start --args" and the experience is very nice.
ar_lan 4y ago
If your debugger implements the DAP protocol then Neovim is currently capable of a just-as-good debugging experience in my opinion. The sole exception in my opinion is remote debugging (it’s not too bad, but JetBrains really bootstraps this part very well).
saurik 4y ago
I think the interesting thing with debuggers, though, is that I relied heavily on debuggers back when I was relatively new to programming (maybe the first 10-15 years or so), but once I started to feel like I knew what I was doing--and the stuff I was doing became a lot more complicated--debuggers started to feel a lot less useful and even frustrating or limiting... particularly so given that to actually make a debugger work really relies on you buying your entire project into some unified concept of how execution will happen, as the ability to step across IPC/VM/network boundaries is otherwise a pipe dream. I thereby only feel like I get value out of stepping through some code only once every year or two, and gdb is more than good enough; otherwise, I always make sure I have really good mechanisms for logging and error handling, and leave the debuggers for when I'm teaching someone how to code.
- soledades 4y ago
  This but less insultingly.
camgunz 4y ago
Eh, I'm pretty good w/ both gdb and pdb (python's debugger) and whenever confronted with an IDE's debugger (or Firefox/Chrome) I instantly feel like I do when confronted with an IDE: I'm at the mercy of whatever UX this thing will grant me. Scripting will be nonexistent/unfamiliar, specific information will be hard to find, etc. I have a (maybe overbroad) critique of GUI software which is that it mostly brought us pixel-level graphics at the cost of extremely restrictive UX. Or said a different way, GUI apps look better but they're usually harder to get work done in. Part of that is toolkits, part of that is you're using a mouse which is like driving a space ship with a single finger, part of it is the expanding user base of computing (to people who don't necessarily want to learn say, regular expressions). But like, I script GDB. If your IDE debugger won't easily let me do that (or it will but it's a painfully convoluted UX), it doesn't really matter to me that it (subjectively) looks nicer.

cassepipe 4y ago

The gdb TUI with a simple config and a simple readline config from a terminal has personally done wonders for me. I get vi mode, tab completion, syntax coloring, a colored prompt and really all I could ask for. I have aliased gdb to "gdb - q -ex start --args" and the experience is very nice.

ar_lan 4y ago

If your debugger implements the DAP protocol then Neovim is currently capable of a just-as-good debugging experience in my opinion. The sole exception in my opinion is remote debugging (it’s not too bad, but JetBrains really bootstraps this part very well).

saurik 4y ago

I think the interesting thing with debuggers, though, is that I relied heavily on debuggers back when I was relatively new to programming (maybe the first 10-15 years or so), but once I started to feel like I knew what I was doing--and the stuff I was doing became a lot more complicated--debuggers started to feel a lot less useful and even frustrating or limiting... particularly so given that to actually make a debugger work really relies on you buying your entire project into some unified concept of how execution will happen, as the ability to step across IPC/VM/network boundaries is otherwise a pipe dream. I thereby only feel like I get value out of stepping through some code only once every year or two, and gdb is more than good enough; otherwise, I always make sure I have really good mechanisms for logging and error handling, and leave the debuggers for when I'm teaching someone how to code.

soledades 4y ago
This but less insultingly.

camgunz 4y ago

Eh, I'm pretty good w/ both gdb and pdb (python's debugger) and whenever confronted with an IDE's debugger (or Firefox/Chrome) I instantly feel like I do when confronted with an IDE: I'm at the mercy of whatever UX this thing will grant me. Scripting will be nonexistent/unfamiliar, specific information will be hard to find, etc. I have a (maybe overbroad) critique of GUI software which is that it mostly brought us pixel-level graphics at the cost of extremely restrictive UX. Or said a different way, GUI apps look better but they're usually harder to get work done in. Part of that is toolkits, part of that is you're using a mouse which is like driving a space ship with a single finger, part of it is the expanding user base of computing (to people who don't necessarily want to learn say, regular expressions). But like, I script GDB. If your IDE debugger won't easily let me do that (or it will but it's a painfully convoluted UX), it doesn't really matter to me that it (subjectively) looks nicer.