Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #7993 > unrolled thread

Anyone have experience with any php debuggers?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? BobMCT <r.mariotti@fdcx.net> - 2013-01-02 21:50 -0500
    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-02 23:15 -0500
    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2013-01-03 10:25 +0100
      Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? bill <william@TechServSys.com> - 2013-01-03 06:52 -0500
        Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2013-01-03 14:18 +0100
          Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? bill <william@TechServSys.com> - 2013-01-04 07:06 -0500
            Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-04 08:52 -0500
              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2013-01-04 10:50 -0600
                Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-04 18:13 +0000
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-04 14:40 -0500
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Martin Leese <please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID> - 2013-01-05 11:13 -0700
                      Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-05 18:31 +0000
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> - 2013-01-04 15:19 -0500
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-04 20:21 +0000
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2013-01-04 21:39 -0600
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-05 04:32 +0000
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-05 09:45 +0100
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-01-05 10:47 +0100
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-05 12:59 +0000
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-01-15 11:36 +0100
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-15 13:28 +0000
                      Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-01-15 15:48 +0100
                        Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-15 15:05 +0000
                        Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-01-15 18:55 +0000
                Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2013-01-04 19:25 +0100
              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? crankypuss <noemail@noemail.invalid> - 2013-01-05 04:01 -0700
                Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-05 08:35 -0500
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? crankypuss <noemail@noemail.invalid> - 2013-01-05 12:07 -0700
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-05 14:51 -0500
                Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-01-05 15:47 +0000
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-01-05 15:59 +0000
                    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2013-01-05 18:51 +0100
                      Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-05 18:30 +0000
                        Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-01-05 18:44 +0000
                      Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-01-05 18:42 +0000
                        Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2013-01-05 19:47 +0100
                          Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-05 14:52 -0500
                          Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-06 12:11 +0000
                            Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2013-01-06 13:41 +0100
                              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-06 08:23 -0500
                              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-06 13:53 +0000
                  Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-05 18:25 +0000
            Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-01-04 15:22 +0100
              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-01-04 15:40 +0100
              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? crankypuss <noemail@noemail.invalid> - 2013-01-05 04:06 -0700
                Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2013-01-06 01:56 +0100
              Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-01-05 13:55 +0000
                Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? "M. Strobel" <sorry_no_mail_here@nowhere.dee> - 2013-01-05 17:51 +0100
    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2013-01-04 22:30 +0000
    Re: Anyone have experience with any php debuggers? Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-01-05 09:51 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8082

On 15/01/13 10:36, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Am 04.01.2013 19:13, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>
>> On 04/01/13 16:50, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:52:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2013 7:06 AM, bill wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/2013 8:18 AM, M. Strobel wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>> But why worry? A developer has an IDE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Str.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer HTML-Kit Tools as an editor and it is not part of an IDE.
>>>>> bill
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I agree.  A DEVELOPER has an IDE.  A hacker uses an editor.
>>>
>>> A real hacker redirects echo straight to a text file. (;
>>>
>> Its about as stupid as saying a real woodworker has a planer
>> thicknesser, table router, spindle moulder and a press.
>>
>> And doesn't use hammers chisels and hand saws and scrapers.
>>
>> Yet the best musical instruments and cabinet making is all done with
>> hand tools.
>>
>> I was writing code long before we HAD IDEs. And once you had blown the
>> EAROM you had to guess at why it didn't work. Because we didn't have
>> enough ICES to go round.
> [...]
>
> The had the first IDEs including source level debuggers in the late
> 1980s long before Windows or Linux became popular as they are today (and
> when i started software development, Windows 3.1 didn't even exist) -
> and yes, i really liked the opportunity to have "projects" and
> debugging. Just because it is technically possible to do something
> without a special tool it does not mean that using better tools is not
> wise.
>
> BTW: The GNU Debugger was created in 1986.
>
>> BECAUSE we were professionals we learnt to write code in such a way that
>> the chances of a bug were very very low.
>>
>> Its hackers who use IDES to throw code together, and then spend the next
>> day bodging it until it works, simply because they have the tools that
>> make debugging easier than writing proper code in the first place.
>
> I doubt that you ever did projects with thousands line of code from
> scratch and more than one person working on the same project this way.
>
>
I can assure you I did.

MOSTLy in assembler. The project managers job was to carve it out into 
small chunkes that a single coder COULD handle and write the interface 
specs so that the assignment of blame was self evident, and to enforce 
coding standards sos that the next person along COULD understand waht 
had been written. Keep it simple, don't be clever, comment clearly.

EVERY functional block HAD, on pain of being fired, to say what global 
variables it used. So you could grep through the code to fouind out 
which functions did that.

Every functional block HAD to explain in English, what it was supposed 
to do, and comments throughout the code related to these comment block 
to show which bits of the code were supposed to actually do what was 
listed above.

I may these days hack with less comments, but if my code does NOT work I 
go back to that style of comment. At least it reminds me weeks later 
what the code is SUPPOSED to do, even if it doesn't.

I've found aids good for syntax bugs, but not for logical bugs.

A proper compiler and proper language that requires explicit 
declarations of variables takes care of most of the syntax.

The logic? that you have to figure out the hard way.

But at least if the comment sasy 'check dumledore has been initialised 
by Hogwarts' and the code says otherwise, you have a hint...

The trouble is PHP allows lazy coding. Type $dumbledore and its not 
clear whether the variable is being assigned, set, or both. Slack typing 
means that you need === as well as == and = ...

It truly is a hackers language.



-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8083

Am 15.01.2013 14:28, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:

> On 15/01/13 10:36, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Am 04.01.2013 19:13, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
[...]
>>> I was writing code long before we HAD IDEs. And once you had blown the
>>> EAROM you had to guess at why it didn't work. Because we didn't have
>>> enough ICES to go round.
>> [...]
>>
>> The had the first IDEs including source level debuggers in the late
>> 1980s long before Windows or Linux became popular as they are today (and
>> when i started software development, Windows 3.1 didn't even exist) -
>> and yes, i really liked the opportunity to have "projects" and
>> debugging. Just because it is technically possible to do something
>> without a special tool it does not mean that using better tools is not
>> wise.
>>
>> BTW: The GNU Debugger was created in 1986.
>>
>>> BECAUSE we were professionals we learnt to write code in such a way that
>>> the chances of a bug were very very low.
>>>
>>> Its hackers who use IDES to throw code together, and then spend the next
>>> day bodging it until it works, simply because they have the tools that
>>> make debugging easier than writing proper code in the first place.
>>
>> I doubt that you ever did projects with thousands line of code from
>> scratch and more than one person working on the same project this way.
>>
>>
> I can assure you I did.
[...]
> I may these days hack with less comments, but if my code does NOT work I
> go back to that style of comment. At least it reminds me weeks later
> what the code is SUPPOSED to do, even if it doesn't.

Using comments is still wise - even today with the most fancy IDE.

> I've found aids good for syntax bugs, but not for logical bugs.
>
> A proper compiler and proper language that requires explicit
> declarations of variables takes care of most of the syntax.
>
> The logic? that you have to figure out the hard way.

Yep - and if you use a compiler you sometimes have to deal with 
"optimizations" too :-/

> But at least if the comment sasy 'check dumledore has been initialised
> by Hogwarts' and the code says otherwise, you have a hint...
>
> The trouble is PHP allows lazy coding. Type $dumbledore and its not
> clear whether the variable is being assigned, set, or both. Slack typing
> means that you need === as well as == and = ...
>
> It truly is a hackers language.

Well - this is not so surprising, since PHP was originally not created 
to be a programming language but nothing more as a toolkit to create 
HTML documents. If PHP would ever invent stricter rules, most existing 
code would not work any longer - then most people would start to think 
about alternatives to PHP anyway. So PHP has to keep this "lazy" nature 
as long it exists :-/


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8084

On 15/01/13 14:48, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Am 15.01.2013 14:28, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>
>> On 15/01/13 10:36, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Am 04.01.2013 19:13, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> [...]
>>>> I was writing code long before we HAD IDEs. And once you had blown the
>>>> EAROM you had to guess at why it didn't work. Because we didn't have
>>>> enough ICES to go round.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The had the first IDEs including source level debuggers in the late
>>> 1980s long before Windows or Linux became popular as they are today (and
>>> when i started software development, Windows 3.1 didn't even exist) -
>>> and yes, i really liked the opportunity to have "projects" and
>>> debugging. Just because it is technically possible to do something
>>> without a special tool it does not mean that using better tools is not
>>> wise.
>>>
>>> BTW: The GNU Debugger was created in 1986.
>>>
>>>> BECAUSE we were professionals we learnt to write code in such a way
>>>> that
>>>> the chances of a bug were very very low.
>>>>
>>>> Its hackers who use IDES to throw code together, and then spend the
>>>> next
>>>> day bodging it until it works, simply because they have the tools that
>>>> make debugging easier than writing proper code in the first place.
>>>
>>> I doubt that you ever did projects with thousands line of code from
>>> scratch and more than one person working on the same project this way.
>>>
>>>
>> I can assure you I did.
> [...]
>> I may these days hack with less comments, but if my code does NOT work I
>> go back to that style of comment. At least it reminds me weeks later
>> what the code is SUPPOSED to do, even if it doesn't.
>
> Using comments is still wise - even today with the most fancy IDE.
>
>> I've found aids good for syntax bugs, but not for logical bugs.
>>
>> A proper compiler and proper language that requires explicit
>> declarations of variables takes care of most of the syntax.
>>
>> The logic? that you have to figure out the hard way.
>
> Yep - and if you use a compiler you sometimes have to deal with
> "optimizations" too :-/
>

At least these days MOST of the  common optimization errors have been 
solved.

When I satrted in C on microp[reossors it was are to find a compiler 
that COULD  understand teh entire language, and mots produyced very ugly 
code indeed.

My source of that period is liittered with

/* I know that any sane person wouldn't do it this way: however the 
compiler is not a sane person. It's a stupid program, and this is the 
only way to get it to work: feel free to spend a week improving on my 
efforts */

Even then we often had to look at the assembler produced to see what 
kind of spaghtetti it was turning out.

It was a lot later on that I did the same with a modern gnu C compiler 
and thought 'shit that's better code than my hand written assembler: Its 
really got that down pat'


>> But at least if the comment sasy 'check dumledore has been initialised
>> by Hogwarts' and the code says otherwise, you have a hint...
>>
>> The trouble is PHP allows lazy coding. Type $dumbledore and its not
>> clear whether the variable is being assigned, set, or both. Slack typing
>> means that you need === as well as == and = ...
>>
>> It truly is a hackers language.
>
> Well - this is not so surprising, since PHP was originally not created
> to be a programming language but nothing more as a toolkit to create
> HTML documents.

Which it is it has to be said, pretty good at.

  If PHP would ever invent stricter rules, most existing
> code would not work any longer - then most people would start to think
> about alternatives to PHP anyway. So PHP has to keep this "lazy" nature
> as long it exists :-/
>

I am cool with that as long as it isn't dressed up to be more than it is.

If I end up with more than three pages of PHP I tend to think it's time 
to pick another language.

I've recently done almost similar things in C as PHP and frankly, its 
scarcely different in coding time once the makefile is set up.

And C lends itself nicely to modularity. Without the run time overhead 
of included() files.

>


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8085

In article <kd3q7v$adh$1@dont-email.me>,
 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

> Am 15.01.2013 14:28, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:

> > It truly is a hackers language.
> 
> Well - this is not so surprising, since PHP was originally not created 
> to be a programming language but nothing more as a toolkit to create 
> HTML documents. If PHP would ever invent stricter rules, most existing 
> code would not work any longer - then most people would start to think 
> about alternatives to PHP anyway. So PHP has to keep this "lazy" nature 
> as long it exists :-/

Lets hope it continues that way. It is *very* fit for purpose. I use it 
a lot.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8006

Am 04.01.2013 17:50, schrieb Peter H. Coffin:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:52:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 1/4/2013 7:06 AM, bill wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2013 8:18 AM, M. Strobel wrote:
>>>> Am 03.01.2013 12:52, schrieb bill:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use xdebug, and a IDE that does it, for example Komodo IDE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a remote debugger that does not require and IDE?
>>>>> ie: one I can open in a 2nd browser window?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I once found a xdebug_client directly from the makers at xdebug.org,
>>>> but it was in
>>>> alpha state.
>>>>
>>>> You can dump execution traces.
>>>>
>>>> But why worry? A developer has an IDE.
>>>>
>>>> /Str.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer HTML-Kit Tools as an editor and it is not part of an IDE.
>>> bill
>>
>> Sorry, I agree.  A DEVELOPER has an IDE.  A hacker uses an editor.
> 
> A real hacker redirects echo straight to a text file. (;

... using ssh sessions spanning at least 10 servers. It is just faster.

/Str.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8015

On 01/04/2013 06:52 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 1/4/2013 7:06 AM, bill wrote:
>> On 1/3/2013 8:18 AM, M. Strobel wrote:
>>> Am 03.01.2013 12:52, schrieb bill:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Use xdebug, and a IDE that does it, for example Komodo IDE.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a remote debugger that does not require and IDE?
>>>> ie: one I can open in a 2nd browser window?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I once found a xdebug_client directly from the makers at xdebug.org,
>>> but it was in
>>> alpha state.
>>>
>>> You can dump execution traces.
>>>
>>> But why worry? A developer has an IDE.
>>>
>>> /Str.
>>>
>>
>> I prefer HTML-Kit Tools as an editor and it is not part of an IDE.
>> bill
>
> Sorry, I agree.  A DEVELOPER has an IDE.  A hacker uses an editor.
>

Please, Jerry; such unthinking buffoonery is beneath you, you are 
neither an idiot nor a fool so why present yourself as a bigoted 
software redneck.

Developers do what is necessary, including building their own IDE using 
an editor, or the fucking dip-switches if that's what it takes.  Lamers 
subject to significant brain damage from too many years of doing as they 
are told only have an IDE, the one that is most politically correct, or 
has been chosen by some idiot who has sucked up to management.

It is absolutely unnecessary to have an IDE in order to have a debugger, 
the debugger does its part of the job, the editor does its part, and an 
IDE tries to take it all upon itself to hoard the credit... in some 
cases an IDE might actually make things more convenient overall, but 
I've seen more cases of IDEs making things more of a pain in the ass.

The word "hacker" seems to have come into vogue and now seems to be 
leaving the fad building; back in the day, a "hack" described a quack 
doctor, or an incompetent professional.  People want to think they are 
hackers when that is the politically acceptable thing, "developers" when 
that is more fashionable.  Nobody is content to be a programmer anymore, 
everybody is most interested in gathering the acclaim suggested by a 
fancy title.  Developer, hacker, blah blah blah.  Just get the job done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8018

On 1/5/2013 6:01 AM, crankypuss wrote:
> On 01/04/2013 06:52 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 1/4/2013 7:06 AM, bill wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2013 8:18 AM, M. Strobel wrote:
>>>> Am 03.01.2013 12:52, schrieb bill:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use xdebug, and a IDE that does it, for example Komodo IDE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a remote debugger that does not require and IDE?
>>>>> ie: one I can open in a 2nd browser window?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I once found a xdebug_client directly from the makers at xdebug.org,
>>>> but it was in
>>>> alpha state.
>>>>
>>>> You can dump execution traces.
>>>>
>>>> But why worry? A developer has an IDE.
>>>>
>>>> /Str.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer HTML-Kit Tools as an editor and it is not part of an IDE.
>>> bill
>>
>> Sorry, I agree.  A DEVELOPER has an IDE.  A hacker uses an editor.
>>
>
> Please, Jerry; such unthinking buffoonery is beneath you, you are
> neither an idiot nor a fool so why present yourself as a bigoted
> software redneck.
>
> Developers do what is necessary, including building their own IDE using
> an editor, or the fucking dip-switches if that's what it takes.  Lamers
> subject to significant brain damage from too many years of doing as they
> are told only have an IDE, the one that is most politically correct, or
> has been chosen by some idiot who has sucked up to management.
>

Yes, developers do what is necessary - including acquiring the correct 
tools to make their job easier and more efficient.  This includes an 
IDE.  And no, GOOD developers don't waste their time creating an IDE - 
there are several already available they can use - which allows them to 
spend their time being productive.  I don't know of any carpenters who 
build their own hammers.

> It is absolutely unnecessary to have an IDE in order to have a debugger,
> the debugger does its part of the job, the editor does its part, and an
> IDE tries to take it all upon itself to hoard the credit... in some
> cases an IDE might actually make things more convenient overall, but
> I've seen more cases of IDEs making things more of a pain in the ass.
>

No, and it's not necessary for a carpenter to have a hammer.  But a good 
IDE with an integrated debugger is much more efficient a separate 
debugger.

Yes, the wrong IDE can be a PITA - but often times the problem is the 
developer not taking the time to learn a new tool properly.

> The word "hacker" seems to have come into vogue and now seems to be
> leaving the fad building; back in the day, a "hack" described a quack
> doctor, or an incompetent professional.  People want to think they are
> hackers when that is the politically acceptable thing, "developers" when
> that is more fashionable.  Nobody is content to be a programmer anymore,
> everybody is most interested in gathering the acclaim suggested by a
> fancy title.  Developer, hacker, blah blah blah.  Just get the job done.


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8032

On 01/05/2013 06:35 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Yes, developers do what is necessary - including acquiring the correct
> tools to make their job easier and more efficient.  This includes an
> IDE.  And no, GOOD developers don't waste their time creating an IDE -
> there are several already available they can use - which allows them to
> spend their time being productive.  I don't know of any carpenters who
> build their own hammers.

Typical employee "yes massah" philosophy.

When the available tools are crap, I build my own and save time in the 
long run.

No, I don't usually build my own hammers, because the morons of the 
world have golly whiz finally figured out how to make hammers.

I have however, on occasion, made my own drill bits.

Your experience with PHP debuggers is whatever it is, that's what the OP 
asked about.  I'm probably going to install xdebug and see what can be 
done with it... as for there being a decent IDE to hook up to it, I'm 
somewhat less than optimistic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8033

On 1/5/2013 2:07 PM, crankypuss wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 06:35 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Yes, developers do what is necessary - including acquiring the correct
>> tools to make their job easier and more efficient.  This includes an
>> IDE.  And no, GOOD developers don't waste their time creating an IDE -
>> there are several already available they can use - which allows them to
>> spend their time being productive.  I don't know of any carpenters who
>> build their own hammers.
>
> Typical employee "yes massah" philosophy.
>

Nope.  It's acquiring and using the proper tools.  A carpenter has 
multiple types of hammers because he knows different jobs require 
different tools.

> When the available tools are crap, I build my own and save time in the
> long run.
>
> No, I don't usually build my own hammers, because the morons of the
> world have golly whiz finally figured out how to make hammers.
>

That's exactly what you're doing when you build your own tools.

> I have however, on occasion, made my own drill bits.
>
> Your experience with PHP debuggers is whatever it is, that's what the OP
> asked about.  I'm probably going to install xdebug and see what can be
> done with it... as for there being a decent IDE to hook up to it, I'm
> somewhat less than optimistic.
>

There are a couple of decent free IDE's which hook up to it, as well as 
some paid ones.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8020

crankypuss <noemail@noemail.invalid> wrote in news:kc915i0co4@news3.newsguy.com:

> On 01/04/2013 06:52 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sorry, I agree.  A DEVELOPER has an IDE.  A hacker uses an editor.
> 
> Please, Jerry; such unthinking buffoonery is beneath you,

No, it's not. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8021

In article <XnsA13F6DB3FF4D0dougmilmaccom@88.198.244.100>,
 Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> wrote:

> crankypuss <noemail@noemail.invalid> wrote in 
> news:kc915i0co4@news3.newsguy.com:
> 
> > On 01/04/2013 06:52 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> Sorry, I agree.  A DEVELOPER has an IDE.  A hacker uses an editor.
> > 
> > Please, Jerry; such unthinking buffoonery is beneath you,
> 
> No, it's not. 

Jerry's just being a fathead. I've had no need for anything other than 
echo for the last 12 years.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8024

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> Jerry's just being a fathead. I've had no need for anything other
> than echo for the last 12 years.

 Could you please call it off? The fact that Jerry need training
wheels on his editor, does not make him less (or for that matter,
more) of a programmer. 

 We all have our peculiar style of development. Some cannot work
without a WIMP-interface; other of us work better without. Some want
everything in one neat package; other want to cherry-pick the perfect
set of tools. Some of us can make a design up front, and stick to it;
other want to re-factor[1] their way. Some know PHP in such a detail,
that the occasional check for syntax in another tool, isn't that much
of a hassle; others can't be bothered to remember stuff, that can be
had as a pop-up in the editor. etc. etc.

 So in short, the discussion about IDE[2] or not is at best a
meningless dick-size-war, similar to the ceaseless attacks that the
heathens of VI makes on the sacred lands of emacs[3] :)


1. If any of you also develop C, take a look at Coccinelle
   <http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/> if you are in the re-factoring camp.

2. Of the definition of an IDE, for that matter.

3. The only OS I know of, that has had success in disguising itself as
   an editor.
-- 
/Wegge

Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8027

On 05/01/13 17:51, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:

>   So in short, the discussion about IDE[2] or not is at best a
> meningless dick-size-war, similar to the ceaseless attacks that the
> heathens of VI makes on the sacred lands of emacs[3] :)
>
+1

I learnt vi because it was all there was on most of the systems I worked 
on.

It is possibly the worst excuse for a word processor/ text editor or 
whatever that it is possible to imagine. I would never defend it.

BUT I still use it. Because frankly I learnt to use it, because I had to 
and for a bit of casual script editing it suffices.

However for coding I use a text editor with a bit of text decoration. 
Geany or Pluma these days.

I dont feel deprived.


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8030

In article <kc9rgd$d0l$1@news.albasani.net>,
 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/01/13 17:51, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> 
> >   So in short, the discussion about IDE[2] or not is at best a
> > meningless dick-size-war, similar to the ceaseless attacks that the
> > heathens of VI makes on the sacred lands of emacs[3] :)
> >
> +1
> 
> I learnt vi because it was all there was on most of the systems I worked 
> on.
> 
> It is possibly the worst excuse for a word processor/ text editor or 
> whatever that it is possible to imagine. I would never defend it.

Indeed and there's no other reason to learn it.

> BUT I still use it. Because frankly I learnt to use it, because I had to 
> and for a bit of casual script editing it suffices.

I just refer to the summary card I have from using it under Ultrix.

> However for coding I use a text editor with a bit of text decoration. 
> Geany or Pluma these days.

TextWrangler.

> I dont feel deprived.

You aren't.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8029

In article <87a9snh627.fsf@huddi.jernurt.dk>,
 Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> 
> > Jerry's just being a fathead. I've had no need for anything other
> > than echo for the last 12 years.
> 
>  Could you please call it off?

Probably not.

> The fact that Jerry need training wheels on his editor, does not
> make him less (or for that matter, more) of a programmer.

Indeed, and no one has asserted that. The discussion has moved on to 
whether Jerry is a clown or not.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8031

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> Indeed, and no one has asserted that. The discussion has moved on to
> whether Jerry is a clown or not.

 Could you then please base that discussion on some factors that at
least *pretend* to be objective?

-- 
/Wegge

Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8034

On 1/5/2013 1:47 PM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>
>> Indeed, and no one has asserted that. The discussion has moved on to
>> whether Jerry is a clown or not.
>
>   Could you then please base that discussion on some factors that at
> least *pretend* to be objective?
>

Sorry, that's impossible for trolls.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8036

On 05/01/13 18:47, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>
>> Indeed, and no one has asserted that. The discussion has moved on to
>> whether Jerry is a clown or not.
>
>   Could you then please base that discussion on some factors that at
> least *pretend* to be objective?
>
Well go to google archives and see if you can find even ONE example of 
code provided by jerry that he has in fact written.

Those who can, do, those who cant, teach.

And criticise.

His dormant company is a training company.


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8037

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 05/01/13 18:47, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:

>>   Could you then please base that discussion on some factors that at
>> least *pretend* to be objective?

> Well go to google archives and see if you can find even ONE example of
> code provided by jerry that he has in fact written.

 I did that once. It took me a very long time to find a post with
actual code in it. I was not impressed by the quality.

 I tried to re-find it, but no luck. Instead I found an interesting
quote from Mr. Stuckle himself:
 
    And the number of years one has been programming is not an
    indication of the quality of the programmer.

 I seem to recall that at other times, the opposite have been written.

> Those who can, do, those who cant, teach.
> 
> And criticise.

 Yep.

-- 
/Wegge

Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8038

On 1/6/2013 7:41 AM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 05/01/13 18:47, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
>
>>>    Could you then please base that discussion on some factors that at
>>> least *pretend* to be objective?
>
>> Well go to google archives and see if you can find even ONE example of
>> code provided by jerry that he has in fact written.
>
>   I did that once. It took me a very long time to find a post with
> actual code in it. I was not impressed by the quality.
>

Didn't look very hard, did you?  You must be as incompetent as TNP.


>   I tried to re-find it, but no luck. Instead I found an interesting
> quote from Mr. Stuckle himself:
>
>      And the number of years one has been programming is not an
>      indication of the quality of the programmer.
>
>   I seem to recall that at other times, the opposite have been written.
>
>> Those who can, do, those who cant, teach.
>>
>> And criticise.
>
>   Yep.
>

When the shoe fits...

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web