Fix and continue in Smalltalk
'Fix and continue' in smalltalk is similar to edit and continue in .net. But listen to how well it's described in this screencast from James Robertson. I love the metaphor he uses: "In most environments, when you're in the debugger, what you've got is a dead patient and you're a forensic pathologist. The best you can do is figure out what killed the poor guy and then hope that the next version doesn't die of the same thing. "In smalltalk you're a surgeon. You've got the guy laid out on a table. He's under anaesthesia, but you can patch him up and send him on his way." James Robertson
This is reminiscent of the old medical saying: You can always make a correct diagnosis - but sometimes, you have to wait until the autopsy (via Dr Karl)
For an interestng rant against edit and continue, read what frans bouma said on the topic in 2003. (If you're not yet familiar with Frans -- then you might like to read his 2003 rant against stored procedures too.) On a different track, check out this amazing Douglas Adams DocuFantasy Video from 1990. He does a pretty nice job of pre-empting YouTube, the internet, and of covering the pre-history of the pre-internet as it stood at that time. A clippy like butler 'agent' even makes an appearance.
'Raj Chaudhuri' on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:23:11 GMT, sez: Edit and Continue in classic VB was a thing of beauty. Oh, the joy of intercepting a DCOM call from another machine, breaking into the VB IDE, and changing the code and returning before the call timed out...ahem. Not that this is recomended practice, of course. But you could do it.
'Mark Pearce' on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:12:47 GMT, sez: Frans is notorious for taking an extremely black-and-white view of the world. As usual, reality is more subtle than that:
http://sleeksoft.co.uk/public/techblog/articles/20051224_1.html
'Frans Bouma' on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:50:46 GMT, sez: "Frans is notorious for taking an extremely black-and-white view of the world. As usual, reality is more subtle than that"
Am I? Or are you just not understanding the concept of basing an opinion on arguments?
It's not that I find E&C stupid 'just because', but because of reasons I documented clearly in the article. The reasons I mentioned can only have one conclusion: IF you follow these steps, there's no need for E&C as you will never ever run into the situation needing it.
'Marcos' on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:39:02 GMT, sez: The Edit & Continue of VS2005 dont work at all for us in a big VB.NET project (9 fails over 10 tries), only after the service pack we have a decent (4/10 ratio) LoL
For C# it works fine but like Frans said if you think a bit before press F5 you dont need it =)
Cheers
'Dominic Cronin' on Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:56:56 GMT, sez: Having high-level tools will make some people lazy. High-level tools are therefore evil. ROFL
Seriously though - if the argument against edit-and-continue is that there-is-only-one-true-way-to-debug-software... someone's lost the plot.
Give me high-level tools, or give me assembler!!!
'Farmer Jeb' on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:03:04 GMT, sez: Who gives a sh1t about edit and continue. Did nobody click the link to the Douglas Adams short film? It's got Tom Baker (Doctor Who #4) in it!
'Mozzy' on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:14:59 GMT, sez: Farmer Jeb took the words right out of my mouth. It's everybody's favourite Doctor! (Dr Karl comes second).
'James Robertson' on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:03:46 GMT, sez: Translation of Frans' explanation of "why you don't need it"
"If you wrote perfect code and perfect tests like me, then the problem wouldn't exist"
Sadly, the rest of us aren't perfect. So while Frans is happy never needing a debugger, I'll stay in the imperfect world with everyone else - and discover that a debugger that supports edit and continue makes me more productive.
I await Frans' announcement that he's running for public office - a perfect, error free guy like him sounds great.
|