Home » Community » U++ community news and announcements » U++ 2017 beta
Re: U++ 2017 beta [message #47331 is a reply to message #47330] |
Wed, 04 January 2017 15:47 |
|
mirek
Messages: 13975 Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 04 January 2017 15:38mirek wrote on Wed, 04 January 2017 15:49cbpporter wrote on Wed, 04 January 2017 11:19
But I'll focus on strings first. Won't have probably time for anything more.
Here is a mockup of what I'm thinking:
Trouble with that is that it requires "special treatment" for String - debugger needs to be aware that you are at String.
Frankly, the ideal solution would be calling 'AsString' for values somehow, but that aint so easy unfortunately...
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Added special logic based on type name. Small price to pay I think for the added benefits. And not just String. A few Core classes should be handled like this too, like Vector, which has abysmal debugging. This isn't 1995 anymore, we can't have it like it is. Plus, the debugger should be aware of a few more other things, like Moveable. Remove all unnecessary information.
Think of the most fancy and elegant scripting language possible. Something people love to use and once they start to use it, become extremely loyal to it, like Python or Ruby. Now imagine how streamlined and useful debugging can look in those (there is support for full time run-time reflection and eval). That's what I want in U++. A String shouldn't have len, ptr, s, wptr, w, q and what not. What are even those? I know what they are, but I don't want to. Nobody does! The debug output should be readable for a String by a baby.
We can't do stuff like in the scripting languages, but we can hard code the debugger to pretty print a couple of hand picked types if in debug mode and if they have the proper layout.
Been there - that is what micio with MI2 debugger was trying. For me, it was never really usable. But maybe you will have a better luck
|
|
|
|
|
U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 22 December 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Thu, 22 December 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 22 December 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Klugier on Sun, 25 December 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: omari on Mon, 26 December 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mr_ped on Fri, 23 December 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: koldo on Fri, 23 December 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 25 December 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 25 December 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 01 January 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 28 December 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 28 December 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 28 December 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Klugier on Wed, 28 December 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: amrein on Thu, 29 December 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 01 January 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 01 January 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Mon, 02 January 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Mon, 02 January 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Mon, 02 January 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: amrein on Tue, 03 January 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Tue, 03 January 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: amrein on Wed, 04 January 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 04 January 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 04 January 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 04 January 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Wed, 04 January 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Wed, 04 January 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Wed, 04 January 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 05 January 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Thu, 05 January 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Klugier on Wed, 04 January 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 05 January 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mr_ped on Thu, 05 January 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 05 January 2017 08:20
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 08 05:07:46 CEST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01593 seconds
|