Variable not Showing in Debugger

[Arcticool]

Can anyone tell me why j never shows up in my locals window? 32 is
printed to console so I know the assignment is working. I was under the
impression that I could see everything as it happens by setting a
breakpoint then F11 on through the code. Kind of disturbing that j never
shows up, (regardless of where I set my breakpoint) as it makes me
wonder what else I'm not seeing. Is there a 'show everything' debugger
option or something I'm missing? BTW, I'm using the 'Express' version of
Visual Studio.

public class Tester
{
* static int j = 32;
static void Main()
* {
Console.WriteLi ne(j);
Time t1 = new Time( currentTime );
t1.DisplayCurre ntTime();

Time t2 = new Time( 2007, 9, 18, 11, 45 );
t2.DisplayCurre ntTime();

Time t3 = new Time();
t3.DisplayCurre ntTime();
}
}

//* = breakpoints

Thanks in advance,

Jack

[Arcticool]

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:34:37 -0700, Arcticool <ar*******@hotm ail.com>
wrote:

>[...]
I just thought that the debugger could show everything that's
happening in the code as you step through. If it is only selectively
showing me information, I wonder what else I'm *not* seeing.

Well, one other obvious thing missing from Express is the lack of
threaded debugging. That is, you can debug any thread in Express, but
it has no UI for switching your view from one thread to another.

Express is a limited version of Visual Studio. It stands to reason that
there will be things it doesn't show you.

>Now I'm also wondering if 'Express' is as good of a learning tool as
the other versions...

If the Express version had all of the features that the retail versions
had, there wouldn't be much point in the retail versions, would there?
And surely the determining factor for what features make it into the
Express version and what features don't is not strictly "which ones
support the IDE as a learning tool?" That is, obviously given that some
features are missing in the Express version, some of the missing
features would be ones that are useful for learning.

In other words, I have no idea why you would expect that the free
version of Visual Studio be every bit as effective a "learning tool" as
the retail version, at least with respect to your apparent implication
that features in the IDE equate to it being a "learning tool"
(personally, I think that one of the things that may help the Express
version be a good learning tool is the relative simplicity, leaving out
features that could confuse a beginning programmer).

Now, all that said...I'm still surprised that it doesn't have the
"Autos" window. I've used the Express version in the past, and that's
the sort of feature that I'd think I'd notice if it were missing. But I
guess I'll take your word for it that that's one of the features that's
been left out of the Express version (I definitely don't care enough to
install the thing now just to check :p ).

But surely this is not a critical feature for being able to use the
debugger as a "learning tool". It's really only a matter of slight
inconvenience. It's not like the debugger won't let you see whatever
variables you want to see. You just need to be a bit more explicit
about it.

Pete

Well free is free so I guess I can't complain, just a little surprised
this feature is missing. Apparently there is quite a bit more missing as
well:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstu.../cc149003.aspx
http://www.programmingforums.org/post146811.html

It looks like the 2005 Express was missing the Watch window, but had
Autos, now in the 2008 edition its reversed.
Anyway, the good news is that items added to the Watch window are saved
with the project. If I close VS then re-open the Watched items
previously added are still there.

Jack

[Pavel Minaev]

On Aug 14, 3:34*am, Arcticool <arctic...@hotm ail.comwrote:

I just thought that the debugger could show everything that's happening
in the code as you step through.

For one thing, the code sample you've posted doesn't even use the
variable you're interested in, so why should the debugger bother
showing it? I doubt it would be displayed even if you could enable the
"Autos" window. If you at least had an instance of your class, and
called a method on it, then "this" would've show in "Locals", and you
could expand it and see the static variables in a separate node
under it.

And, of course, the debugger cannot just show you all values of all
static variables in a program at all times - for anything above
HelloWorld, it would quickly become unwieldy.

[Arcticool]

Pavel Minaev wrote:

On Aug 14, 3:34 am, Arcticool <arctic...@hotm ail.comwrote:

>I just thought that the debugger could show everything that's happening
in the code as you step through.

For one thing, the code sample you've posted doesn't even use the
variable you're interested in, so why should the debugger bother
showing it? I doubt it would be displayed even if you could enable the
"Autos" window. If you at least had an instance of your class, and
called a method on it, then "this" would've show in "Locals", and you
could expand it and see the static variables in a separate node
under it.

When you say the variable J is not 'used' you mean the variable isn't
modified? J is assigned to 32. Also it is used on Console.Writeli ne(J);
So 'stuff' is happening with J, but not much I guess...

And, of course, the debugger cannot just show you all values of all
static variables in a program at all times - for anything above
HelloWorld, it would quickly become unwieldy.

I don't really want to see everything at once, just what is happening as
it happens. If something changes ( J gets assigned to 32 or J is written
out ) I'd like the debugger to show me what's happening as I hit F11.

But I think the real issue is that I'm using the Express version of VS
which has no Autos window, which would have shown me these things. I've
done a bit of searching however and haven't seen anything better than VS
Express (not Windows based anyway) so I'm wondering now if I would be
better off with an older (full retail) of VS 2003? With the patches and
updates will I be better off or worse?
Thanks,

Jack