[OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 14.09.2013 19:30, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 07:28:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset and hit
>>> "step" a million times (or muck around with conditional breakpoints,
>>> which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) every
>>> single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*.  But
>>> with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a glance,
>>> and all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already using.
>>>
>>> Writeln debugging rocks my world.
>>
>> Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain point,
>> and I'll take that: until this, I still need a debugger for
>> following the program flow.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort. In fact, this
> would be a game-changer to writeln debugging. I should take a look at
> the stack unwinding code in druntime sometime and see if I can knock
> something together that does this.
>
> One trick my coworkers like to use sometimes (with C/C++) is to insert
> an infinite loop into the program at the suspected problem spot, then at
> runtime when it reaches 99% CPU, kill -11 to force a segfault to
> generate a stack trace (we have a stacktrace generator hooked up to the
> signal handler). I've used that a couple o' times, and it's surprisingly
> effective, I must say. We found that sometimes this is the only approach
> that is effective, since the path to get to the problem spot may be
> completely non-trivial to reach from a debugger (may involve fork()'s,
> dynamically-loaded .so's, and event loops dispatches triggered by
> real-time network data that would be excruciatingly slow to step through
> manually in a debugger).
>
> Still, if there was a way to print a stacktrace *without* terminating
> the program, that would be an invaluable addition to our toolset.
>
>
>> And no, adding a writeln everywhere you call that function is not a
>> solution.
> [...]
>
> True, this is one of the weak points of writeln debugging. Though I
> usually start from the top-level, so generally by the time I get to a
> specific function I already know how it got there.
>
> OTOH, even displaying callstack may not help if your code is heavy on
> callbacks (or in D, delegates) invoked from event loops. The original
> context that registered the callback is long gone by the time the
> function actually runs, so the callstack only goes down to the event
> dispatcher, which is no help.
>
>
> T
>

So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx

at least on Windows. :)

--
Paulo