Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools?

From	mhx@iae.nl
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools?
Date	2012-07-11 15:45 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<ad37fddb-d708-48cc-a4ba-9e95efe1cd7e@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	<2ea8a4ce-4bd0-4fd6-a19f-81f0f073dd18@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:10:59 PM UTC+2, Jason Damisch wrote:
[..]
> I once thought of the idea of creating a tool which would allow the
> programmer to step through the program inside of the editor.  But then
> I decided not to do this because it would encourage me and perhaps
> other programmers to get sloppy with the stack.
[..]

I consider this particular facility a basic tool. You run a 400 line Forth program written by somebody else (or from 2 weeks ago). You notice there 
is an unexpected extra number left on the stack. How do you approach the 
problem of pinpointing this bug?

-marcel

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why not more 'advanced' tools? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 11:10 -0700
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-11 15:45 -0700
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 13:08 -1000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-11 16:39 -0700
        Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 14:00 -1000
          Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 19:41 -0700
            Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 22:22 -0700
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:31 -0700
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-13 01:52 +0000
            Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 20:43 -1000
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2012-07-12 12:05 +0200
                Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-07-12 16:25 +0200
        Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-12 23:50 +0200
          Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 13:43 +0000
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-07-12 00:29 +0000
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 22:13 -0700
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:29 -0700
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-12 02:09 -0700
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-12 07:17 -0500
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-07-12 20:19 +0200
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-12 08:45 -1000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-12 19:47 +0000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-12 14:54 -0700

csiph-web