By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,456 Members | 1,742 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,456 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

PHP debugging

P: n/a
PHP has some pretty funky error messages:

"parse error, unexpected T_IF";
"Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING";

Humans often see these - shouldn't they be more human readable?

....and why are there no stack backtraces?

When a problem arises, I am often interested in knowing where the
problem code was called from.

It seems as though - with PHP - I need third-party debugging tools if I
want to access this information :-|
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
79 Replies


P: n/a
Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote or quoted:
PHP has some pretty funky error messages:

"parse error, unexpected T_IF";
"Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING";

Humans often see these - shouldn't they be more human readable?


Heh: almost forgot one of my favourites:

"Parse error: parse error, unexpected $end"

For the benefit of PHP's authors, I'll translate that one into a more
human-readable format myself:

"The PHP parser unexpectedly encountered the end of the file - and it
refuses to make any further effort to find out where the problem
actually is - so you'll have to track the problem down yourself."
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #2

P: n/a
Despite having been a programmer for many years, I have never been able to
understand the need for such confusing error messages. Some of the messages
in PHP are real shockers.

It is as if some programmers get some sort of buzz out of making error
messages as cryptic as humanly possible. Clearly the term "plain english" is
not part of their vocabulary.

Hamilton
"Tim Tyler" <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:I3********@bath.ac.uk...
Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote or quoted:
PHP has some pretty funky error messages:

"parse error, unexpected T_IF";
"Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING";

Humans often see these - shouldn't they be more human readable?


Heh: almost forgot one of my favourites:

"Parse error: parse error, unexpected $end"

For the benefit of PHP's authors, I'll translate that one into a more
human-readable format myself:

"The PHP parser unexpectedly encountered the end of the file - and it
refuses to make any further effort to find out where the problem
actually is - so you'll have to track the problem down yourself."
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Jul 17 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Spidah" <h.*********@eggstra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:or********************@news.xtra.co.nz...
Despite having been a programmer for many years, I have never been able to
understand the need for such confusing error messages. Some of the messages in PHP are real shockers.

It is as if some programmers get some sort of buzz out of making error
messages as cryptic as humanly possible. Clearly the term "plain english" is not part of their vocabulary.


Where as Empire Building and Job Creation are ;-)

Jul 17 '05 #4

P: n/a
What's wrong with PHP error messages? They tell you the script name, the
line number, what was expected and what was found. What more do you want?
Auto-correction?

If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you are
a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper tools.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

"Tim Tyler" <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:I3********@bath.ac.uk...
PHP has some pretty funky error messages:

"parse error, unexpected T_IF";
"Parse error: parse error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING";

Humans often see these - shouldn't they be more human readable?

...and why are there no stack backtraces?

When a problem arises, I am often interested in knowing where the
problem code was called from.

It seems as though - with PHP - I need third-party debugging tools if I
want to access this information :-|
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

Jul 17 '05 #5

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:

If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you
are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper
tools.


So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).

Silly me - I've been using all these stupid beginner tools like vi, sed and
cvs. I even went to the trouble of writing my own error-handlers (which do
things like reporting stack traces) with different versions for development
and production (how do you implement error checking in production using an
IDE?). Not to mention inserting instrumentation into my code.

WRT the OP's questions:

http://uk.php.net/manual/en/function...or-handler.php
http://uk.php.net/manual/en/function...-reporting.php
http://uk.php.net/manual/en/function...-backtrace.php

You might also find the lint option useful
(http://uk.php.net/manual/en/features.commandline.php) although it's only a
static check of the current file.

Note that parse errors (like those you mentioned) are always fatal. I
recently discovered that the create_function() seems to do strange things
with error reporting (on a parse error execution of the main thread
continues, but it seems to reports it via the default error handler)

HTH

C.
Jul 17 '05 #6

P: n/a
*** Tony Marston escribió/wrote (Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:42:20 +0100):
What's wrong with PHP error messages? They tell you the script name, the
line number, what was expected and what was found. What more do you want?
Auto-correction?


"unexpected end of script" instead of "unexpected $end"
"unexpected if() statement" instead of "unexpected T_IF"
"expecting a variable name" instead of "expecting T_VARIABLE"

Such things, I guess.
--
--
-+ Álvaro G. Vicario - Burgos, Spain - ICQ 46788716
+- http://www.demogracia.com (la web de humor para mayores de 100 años)
++ «Sonríe, que te vamos a hacer una foto para la esquela»
--
Jul 17 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Tony Marston wrote:

If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you
are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper
tools.


So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).


You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a debugger
instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will help you to track
down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.

If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be an
amateur code-monkey.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #8

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Tony Marston wrote:

If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you
are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper
tools.

So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).

You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a debugger
instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will help you to track
down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.


Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be an
amateur code-monkey.

Jul 17 '05 #9

P: n/a
dbmethods wrote:
Tony Marston wrote:
"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Tony Marston wrote:

If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger
then you are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start
using proper tools.

So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).


You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a
debugger instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will
help you to track down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a
better programmer.


Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be
an amateur code-monkey.

Nonsense. All you need is a good editor and a good debugger! They need
not co-exist in the same window, they just need to be available - and
good. Tools are indeed tools. As such they should be separate and focus
on the issue of the problem they are designed to address. I don't have a
hammer/screwdriver/axe/drill combo - I have separates. Each tool is good
at what it was designed to do and these tools can be used together if
need be.

It is not really that difficult to edit in your editor and drop into a
command window to debug or a browser or whatever. Indeed it keeps you in
touch with how all of this works together. IDEs cloud that issue and
often people do not know how to do anything except with their particular
IDE with it's particular extensions. True masters use their tools and
apply them to different problems. There is saying about this, "If all
you have is a hammer then all of your problems look like nails!". But a
true master will use different tools, each good at what it does, in
ingenious ways to solve way more problems than the hammer master! And,
he'll know why they worked or why the particular tool is not suited for
the task at hand.
Jul 17 '05 #10

P: n/a
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.


For coding, on Linux I use nano in the console and Kate/Kwrite in KDE.
In Windows, Notepad.

For debugging, upload to a testing Apache server (can even be on the
local machine) and hit the page in Mozilla Firefox.

Simple, and no bloated IDEs needed.

--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Cabbage Promotions
Jul 17 '05 #11

P: n/a

"dbmethods" <db*******@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9K**********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
Tony Marston wrote:
"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Tony Marston wrote:
If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you
are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper
tools.
So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).

You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a debugger
instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will help you to
track down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.


Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.


I develop on Windows, not Linux, so I use PHPEdit from
http://www.waterproof.fr/

For others I suggest you search google with
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #12

P: n/a

"Andrew DeFaria" <An****@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:ff*************************@msgid.meganewsser vers.com...
dbmethods wrote:
Tony Marston wrote:
"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Tony Marston wrote:

> If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then
> you are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using
> proper tools.
>
So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).

You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a debugger
instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will help you to
track down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.
Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be an
amateur code-monkey.

Nonsense. All you need is a good editor and a good debugger! They need not
co-exist in the same window, they just need to be available - and good.


I prefer an IDE with an integrated debugger. A primitive editor and a
separate debugger just slow me down and lower my productivity rate. That is
not good..
Tools are indeed tools. As such they should be separate and focus on the
issue of the problem they are designed to address. I don't have a
hammer/screwdriver/axe/drill combo - I have separates. Each tool is good
at what it was designed to do and these tools can be used together if need
be.

It is not really that difficult to edit in your editor and drop into a
command window to debug or a browser or whatever. Indeed it keeps you in
touch with how all of this works together. IDEs cloud that issue
Cloud the issue how exactly?
and often people do not know how to do anything except with their
particular IDE with it's particular extensions.
So what? A good programmer should be able to switch from one IDE to another
relatively easily.
True masters use their tools and apply them to different problems. There
is saying about this, "If all you have is a hammer then all of your
problems look like nails!". But a true master will use different tools,
each good at what it does, in ingenious ways to solve way more problems
than the hammer master! And, he'll know why they worked or why the
particular tool is not suited for the task at hand.


Once you have used an IDE with an integrated debugger you will realise that
switching back to a simple text editor and a command line debugger is a
retrograde step. They may both get the job done, but one is faster and
therefore better.

I rest my case.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #13

P: n/a
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Nonsense. All you need is a good editor and a good debugger! They need not
co-exist in the same window, they just need to be available - and good.
I prefer an IDE with an integrated debugger. A primitive editor and a
separate debugger just slow me down and lower my productivity rate. That is
not good..


slow _you_ down. I have yet to find an IDE that has an editor as
powerful as vim. But then again there are people who hate vi(m).

[...] Once you have used an IDE with an integrated debugger you will realise that
switching back to a simple text editor and a command line debugger is a
retrograde step. They may both get the job done, but one is faster and
therefore better.
I tried Zend studio once, it' s debugger is great. The editor was IMHO
horrible. As long as there are no problems in code/server, a "simple
editor" is fasted, in the case of bugs in complex datasctructures a
decent debugger is needed. But there is absolutly no need to have them
integrated.

But enlighten me, what IDE (for PHP) should I take a look at?
I rest my case.


You failed to deliver facts, only opinions (just like I expressed my
own above)

--

Daniel Tryba

Jul 17 '05 #14

P: n/a
In message <9K**********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> , dbmethods
<db*******@nospam.com> writes
Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.


Zend Studio.

Useful features (as in most IDEs):
* code completion - tooltip includes phpdoc info about function.
* debugger.
* press F1 to get help on a php function.
* "go to source of this function" (i.e ctags ).
* grouping of files into "projects".
* find in project.

Things I dislike:
* no "strip trailing whitespace" on save.
* ctrl+tab for switching open files doesn't use a "stack" of tabs.
* no keyboard shortcut for "open file under cursor".
* no keyboard shortcut for "go to source of this function".
* tab line for open files becomes multi-line if too many files are
opened.
It's free for personal use and not especially expensive if you are
making money from your PHP coding :)

--
Rob...
Jul 17 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:07:22 +0100, Rob Allen <ro***@the-allens.net>
wrote:
In message <9K**********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> , dbmethods
<db*******@nospam.com> writes
Which IDE you would recommend? Perfer run on Linux.


Zend Studio.

Useful features (as in most IDEs):
* code completion - tooltip includes phpdoc info about function.
* debugger.
* press F1 to get help on a php function.
* "go to source of this function" (i.e ctags ).
* grouping of files into "projects".
* find in project.

Things I dislike:
* no "strip trailing whitespace" on save.
* ctrl+tab for switching open files doesn't use a "stack" of tabs.
* no keyboard shortcut for "open file under cursor".
* no keyboard shortcut for "go to source of this function".
* tab line for open files becomes multi-line if too many files are
opened.
It's free for personal use and not especially expensive if you are
making money from your PHP coding :)

I recently tried Zend and have since gone back to UEdit on windoze
(Anjuta or Vim on *nix depending on current environment).

Zend has a couple of useful features.. remote file tree for one is very
useful and missing in UEdit.

I develop on a remote box so need a remote debugger for Zend which
AFAIK, isn't a free option. Sure, as I'd be using it for a commercial
purpose too, I could pay for it, but...

Zend IDE has the slowest, cludgiest editor I've ever used; it's purely
horrid! I guess Java has it's place like everything else, an IDE such as
Zend IMO is _not_ a place for it.. it's _WAY_ too slow.

There's no anti-aliasing of fonts either for the editor, which while not
essential, I think makes the code slightly easier on the eyes to read.

As using Zend for me wouldn't just come under "personal use", IMO, it
has too many cons and not enough pros to warrant the price asked. Had
this been written properly in C / C++, it might be a different story.
</£0.02>

Regards,

Ian

--
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/
Jul 17 '05 #16

P: n/a
Ian.H <ia*@windozedigiserv.net> wrote:
Zend IDE has the slowest, cludgiest editor I've ever used; it's purely
horrid! I guess Java has it's place like everything else, an IDE such as
Zend IMO is _not_ a place for it.. it's _WAY_ too slow.

There's no anti-aliasing of fonts either for the editor, which while not
essential, I think makes the code slightly easier on the eyes to read.

As using Zend for me wouldn't just come under "personal use", IMO, it
has too many cons and not enough pros to warrant the price asked. Had
this been written properly in C / C++, it might be a different story.


This has nothing to do with the language it was written in. Java can be
a perfect solution for an environemnt like Zend Studio. Just take a look
eclipse to get an idea of how it could be done better.

--

Daniel Tryba

Jul 17 '05 #17

P: n/a
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote or quoted:
What's wrong with PHP error messages? They tell you the script name, the
line number, what was expected and what was found. What more do you want?
Mostly the things I already mentioned: human readability and stack back-traces.

Having the parser being able to figure out that mismatched braces and
things like function definitons within functions are not normal - and
likely indicate the source of the error - might help as well.
If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you are
a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper tools.


FWIW, I've been writing programs commercially for the last 22 years.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #18

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
Nonsense. All you need is a good editor and a good debugger! They
need not co-exist in the same window, they just need to be available
- and good.
I prefer an IDE with an integrated debugger.


So then you admit that it's a preference not a requirement.
A primitive editor and a separate debugger just slow me down and lower
my productivity rate. That is not good..
Wait a second! You're changing me words. Where did I say "primitive"? I
didn't. I said a good editor not a primitive one. I can as easily say a
primitive editor in the IDE would slow me down too.
It is not really that difficult to edit in your editor and drop into
a command window to debug or a browser or whatever. Indeed it keeps
you in touch with how all of this works together. IDEs cloud that issue


Cloud the issue how exactly?


It obscures the details of what's going on.
and often people do not know how to do anything except with their
particular IDE with it's particular extensions.


So what?


The "every problem is a nail 'cause all I gots a hammer" syndrome is not
what I would consider good.
A good programmer should be able to switch from one IDE to another
relatively easily.
When you "throw all your eggs in one basket" and "provide all this
functionality in a well integrated package" you have made it so that in
order to be good at a particular IDE one must invest a lot of time
studying it, getting to know it and getting proficient at it. So when
the time comes to throw away that IDE and learn the new one reluctance
will kick in - it's human nature.
True masters use their tools and apply them to different problems.
There is saying about this, "If all you have is a hammer then all of
your problems look like nails!". But a true master will use different
tools,
each good at what it does, in ingenious ways to solve way more
problems than the hammer master! And, he'll know why they worked or
why the particular tool is not suited for the task at hand.


Once you have used an IDE with an integrated debugger you will realise
that switching back to a simple text editor and a command line
debugger is a retrograde step.


Maybe for you but not for me. I've used both. I prefer using a set of
good tools rather than a good kitchen sink. With a good kitchen sink I
can work on all kinds of plumbing and water problems (to stretch the
analogy) but with my good set of tools I can fix the sink, shower *and*
work on the car in the garage. Otherwise I need to learn the Automotive
2005 IDE to work on the car! :-)

YMMV
They may both get the job done, but one is faster and therefore better.
Not really. The IDE is oriented to a certain discipline, a certain way
of doing things. Using it to get a different job done doesn't work well.
The programmer has two options at this point: Get another IDE more
suited for the task and spend the time learning it (not a very appealing
choice) or either force fit his current IDE to the task at hand or
change the task at hand to fit his IDE. (also not a good choice).
I rest my case.


Hardly.

--
Think "honk" if you're telepathic.

Jul 17 '05 #19

P: n/a
In message <if********************************@4ax.com>, Ian. H
<ia*@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> writes
I recently tried Zend and have since gone back to UEdit on windoze
(Anjuta or Vim on *nix depending on current environment).

Yeah, I use UEdit for 90% of the stuff I do.
Zend IDE has the slowest, cludgiest editor I've ever used; it's purely
horrid! I guess Java has it's place like everything else, an IDE such
as Zend IMO is _not_ a place for it.. it's _WAY_ too slow.


I find it fast enough on my Athon 1800XP. Compared to UEdit though, I
find the editor simplistic. The code completion on function names is
nice; the non-stack-based ctrl+tab drives me up the wall!

I didn't buy the Zend license though (company did) so price wasn't an
issue.

--
Rob...
Jul 17 '05 #20

P: n/a
In message <91***************************@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>,
Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> writes
When you "throw all your eggs in one basket" and "provide all this
functionality in a well integrated package" you have made it so that in
order to be good at a particular IDE one must invest a lot of time
studying it, getting to know it and getting proficient at it. So when
the time comes to throw away that IDE and learn the new one reluctance
will kick in - it's human nature


This also applies to editors :)

incidentally, can someone point me at a stand-alone PHP debugger for use
on Windows, with the ability to step through code, view watches etc?

--
Rob...
Jul 17 '05 #21

P: n/a
Rob Allen wrote:
In message <91***************************@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>,
Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> writes
When you "throw all your eggs in one basket" and "provide all this
functionality in a well integrated package" you have made it so that
in order to be good at a particular IDE one must invest a lot of time
studying it, getting to know it and getting proficient at it. So when
the time comes to throw away that IDE and learn the new one
reluctance will kick in - it's human nature


This also applies to editors :)


Not really. An editor has one job - to produce a file - in the context
of programming, to produce a source file. It applies to editors as much
as it applies to hammers. A good hammer will take you far and solve
most, if not all of your hammering needs. Sure there are also special
purpose hammers but by and large a good hammer is all you need. Same
with editors, when the focus is editing a file. Ditto with a good
debugger. As has been said before with an IDE you can get a good editor
and a crappy debugger or a good debugger and a crappy editor. Why not
simply get good tools and put them into a toolbox? Let me ask you a
question: Do you actually own a hammer/screwdriver/drill/saw combo? No!
So why do you want a similar thing in an IDE?
--
All women are idiots... and I married their queen.
Jul 17 '05 #22

P: n/a

"Daniel Tryba" <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote in message
news:ch**********@news.tue.nl...
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Nonsense. All you need is a good editor and a good debugger! They need
not
co-exist in the same window, they just need to be available - and good.
I prefer an IDE with an integrated debugger. A primitive editor and a
separate debugger just slow me down and lower my productivity rate. That
is
not good..


slow _you_ down. I have yet to find an IDE that has an editor as
powerful as vim. But then again there are people who hate vi(m).


And I am one of them. I have used many editors over many years, but the
first time I tried to use VI I was totally disgusted with it. It was not
intuitive, it was not user-friendly, so I went back to my previous editor.
Once you have used an IDE with an integrated debugger you will realise
that
switching back to a simple text editor and a command line debugger is a
retrograde step. They may both get the job done, but one is faster and
therefore better.


I tried Zend studio once, it' s debugger is great. The editor was IMHO
horrible. As long as there are no problems in code/server, a "simple
editor" is faster,


A "simple" editor is not faster than an IDE. I have worked with teams of
programmers for many years and I have witnessed the difference in
productivity.
in the case of bugs in complex datasctructures a
decent debugger is needed. But there is absolutly no need to have them
integrated.
That is your preference. My prefernce is different.
But enlighten me, what IDE (for PHP) should I take a look at?


Whichever one takes your fancy. There are plenty out there. Just do a search
for "php ide" on google.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #23

P: n/a

"Tim Tyler" <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:I3********@bath.ac.uk...
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote or quoted:
What's wrong with PHP error messages? They tell you the script name, the
line number, what was expected and what was found. What more do you want?
Mostly the things I already mentioned: human readability and stack
back-traces.


You do not get get such things from parsers or compilers. That is what a
debugger is for.
Having the parser being able to figure out that mismatched braces and
things like function definitons within functions are not normal - and
likely indicate the source of the error - might help as well.
If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you
are
a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper tools.


FWIW, I've been writing programs commercially for the last 22 years.


I have been writing programs commercially for nearly 30 years. I remember
the same level of primitive error messages that were produced by the COBOL
compiler. Learning how to deal with those messages was part of being a
programmer. And we had to do it without any sort of debugger.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #24

P: n/a
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote or quoted:
"Tim Tyler" <ti*@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:I3********@bath.ac.uk...
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote or quoted:
What's wrong with PHP error messages? They tell you the script name, the
line number, what was expected and what was found. What more do you want?


Mostly the things I already mentioned: human readability and stack
back-traces.


You do not get get such things from parsers or compilers. That is what a
debugger is for.


Compilers are normally *supposed* to produce human-readable error messages.

Stack backtraces have been built into runtimes for donkey's years.

Consider Java for instance: stack back-traces by default since 1995.

At least there are some stack back-trace facilities in PHP - they
just aren't turned on by default - and to activate them you have
to write your own error handler.
Having the parser being able to figure out that mismatched braces and
things like function definitons within functions are not normal - and
likely indicate the source of the error - might help as well.
If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger
then you are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start
using proper tools.


FWIW, I've been writing programs commercially for the last 22 years.


I have been writing programs commercially for nearly 30 years. I remember
the same level of primitive error messages that were produced by the COBOL
compiler. Learning how to deal with those messages was part of being a
programmer. And we had to do it without any sort of debugger.


Low levels of human readability in error messages is a problem
that is likely to drive beginners away from the language.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Jul 17 '05 #25

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Tony Marston wrote:

If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper
tools.

So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).


You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a debugger
instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will help you to

track down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.
More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined to
become a better programmer without the IDE.
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be an
amateur code-monkey.


Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right tools"
is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of any IDE.

- Virgil
Jul 17 '05 #26

P: n/a

"Virgil Green" <vj*@DESPAMobsydian.com> wrote in message
news:CZ****************@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com ...
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

"Colin McKinnon" <co**************@andthis.mms3.com> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are not already using an IDE with an integrated debugger then you >> are a junior programmer indeed. Stop whingeing and start using proper
>> tools.
>>
>
> So....if I go and install an IDE I'll be a better programmer ;).


You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a debugger
instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will help you to

track
down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.


More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined to
become a better programmer without the IDE.


Being a "better programmer" is supposed to encompass both accuracy and
speed. Compared to an IDE a simple text editor is too slow. If being able to
use a primitive tool even though it decreases your productivity is *your*
measure of being a better programmer then I suppose back in the days of
punched cards you would have been one of those who stayed with a primitive
non-interpretive hand punch while the rest of us were using VIPs
(Verifier-Interpreter-Punch).
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be an
amateur code-monkey.


Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right tools"
is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of any IDE.


Any IDE is better than no IDE. If you can't find one you like then try
another.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #27

P: n/a
.oO(Tony Marston)
"Daniel Tryba" <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote
in the case of bugs in complex datasctructures a
decent debugger is needed. But there is absolutly no need to have them
integrated.


That is your preference. My prefernce is different.


Exactly, it's a preference. So please don't call people with other
preferences "junior programmer" or "amateur code-monkey".

Micha
Jul 17 '05 #28

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
Any IDE is better than no IDE. If you can't find one you like then try
another.


My "IDE" is Windows (or X) and the various applications I use (Xemacs,
Cygwin, Vim, etc) are the MDI pieces of my "IDE".

(See sometimes you just have to look at things in a different perspective).
Jul 17 '05 #29

P: n/a
Virgil Green wrote:
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a
debugger instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will
help you to

track
down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.


More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were
inclined to become a better programmer without the IDE.


I'm not really that convinced that IDEs make you that much more
productive. I use one at work for development (Visual C++), but at home
I use standalone tools. I do my C compiling on gcc/cygwin and PHP under
the EasyPHP evironment.

For PHP I don't even bother with a debugger, the sort of problems I
normally have are different than the ones from C development. I find
output statements to be about as effective in troubleshooting as would
stepping through.
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always
be an amateur code-monkey.


Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right
tools" is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of
any IDE.


Exactly. I've worked in software starting around 1990 or so, and
switching to it pretty much full-time about 10 years ago. I'm in
software R&D for embedded applications these days.

A software developer should be familiar with a variety of tools, but
not overly dependent on any one. Makefiles are useful in their place,
as are IDE projects. You should know how to use debuggers, also how to
debug when you don't have a debugger.

Brian
Jul 17 '05 #30

P: n/a
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I prefer an IDE with an integrated debugger. A primitive editor and a
separate debugger just slow me down and lower my productivity rate. That
is
not good..


slow _you_ down. I have yet to find an IDE that has an editor as
powerful as vim. But then again there are people who hate vi(m).


And I am one of them. I have used many editors over many years, but the
first time I tried to use VI I was totally disgusted with it. It was not
intuitive, it was not user-friendly, so I went back to my previous editor.


So did I, but when I saw people actually working with vi(m) I saw the
power it had.
I tried Zend studio once, it' s debugger is great. The editor was IMHO
horrible. As long as there are no problems in code/server, a "simple
editor" is faster,


A "simple" editor is not faster than an IDE. I have worked with teams of
programmers for many years and I have witnessed the difference in
productivity.


Once upon a time I had to work with Visual Studio, my productivity
increaded the moment I installed vim for it.
in the case of bugs in complex datasctructures a
decent debugger is needed. But there is absolutly no need to have them
integrated.


That is your preference. My prefernce is different.


Exactly: preference.
But enlighten me, what IDE (for PHP) should I take a look at?


Whichever one takes your fancy. There are plenty out there. Just do a search
for "php ide" on google.


First page only:

Hit 1: http://www.ekenberg.se/php/ide/
Not an IDE, it's a webbased editor.

Hit 2: Zend studio
Great debugger, but editor sucks -> not productive enough unless I
_need_ debugger.

Hit 3: http://www.php-editors.com/
I'm not looking for an editor but IDE.

Hit 4: nusphere
Look good, sadly doens't install on my system. Will look into it later.

Hit 5: http://devphp.sourceforge.net/
Not for my platform and it appears to be only an editor

Hit 6: http://www.xored.com/trustudio
Runs in eclipse, buggy and doesn't appear to have a debugger. So
actually it's only an editor.

Hit 7: http://www.freeprogrammingresources.com/phpide.html
Lists KPHPDevelop as an IDE, which appears hasn't been updated since
2001.

Hit 8: http://www.maguma.com/
Might be promissing, but it just integrates xdebug (never heard of it
before), so I might as well use my own preferred editor with this
debugger?

--

Daniel Tryba

Jul 17 '05 #31

P: n/a

"Michael Fesser" <ne*****@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:ci********************************@4ax.com...
.oO(Tony Marston)
"Daniel Tryba" <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote
in the case of bugs in complex datasctructures a
decent debugger is needed. But there is absolutly no need to have them
integrated.


That is your preference. My prefernce is different.


Exactly, it's a preference. So please don't call people with other
preferences "junior programmer" or "amateur code-monkey".


But when somebody states *their* preference in the tone "real programmers
don't need fancy IDE's" that is when I beg to differ. That does not sound
like a personal preference but more like "nobody needs an IDE".

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #32

P: n/a

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:I3********@news.boeing.com...
Virgil Green wrote:
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

> You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a
> debugger instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will
> help you to track
> down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.


More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were
inclined to become a better programmer without the IDE.


I'm not really that convinced that IDEs make you that much more
productive. I use one at work for development (Visual C++), but at home
I use standalone tools. I do my C compiling on gcc/cygwin and PHP under
the EasyPHP evironment.

For PHP I don't even bother with a debugger, the sort of problems I
normally have are different than the ones from C development. I find
output statements to be about as effective in troubleshooting as would
stepping through.


After having spent many years being forced to use output statements for
debugging purposes I know from personal experience that I can track down and
fix bugs a great deal faster using an interactive debugger. Being able to
track down and fiz bugs faster makes me more productive. Being more
productive makes me a better programmer.
> If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always
> be an amateur code-monkey.


Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right
tools" is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of
any IDE.


Exactly. I've worked in software starting around 1990 or so, and
switching to it pretty much full-time about 10 years ago. I'm in
software R&D for embedded applications these days.

A software developer should be familiar with a variety of tools, but
not overly dependent on any one. Makefiles are useful in their place,
as are IDE projects. You should know how to use debuggers, also how to
debug when you don't have a debugger.


I choose to use an IDE with an integrated debugger, so don't try to tell me
that I should know how to work without one.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #33

P: n/a

"Daniel Tryba" <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote in message
news:ch*********@news.tue.nl...
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I prefer an IDE with an integrated debugger. A primitive editor and a
separate debugger just slow me down and lower my productivity rate.
That
is
not good..

slow _you_ down. I have yet to find an IDE that has an editor as
powerful as vim. But then again there are people who hate vi(m).


And I am one of them. I have used many editors over many years, but the
first time I tried to use VI I was totally disgusted with it. It was not
intuitive, it was not user-friendly, so I went back to my previous
editor.


So did I, but when I saw people actually working with vi(m) I saw the
power it had.


As far as I am concerned VI sucks, asd so does all its derivatives. Just
reading the manual made me want to puke.

<snip>

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #34

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
For PHP I don't even bother with a debugger, the sort of problems I
normally have are different than the ones from C development. I find
output statements to be about as effective in troubleshooting as would
stepping through.


After having spent many years being forced to use output statements
for debugging purposes I know from personal experience that I can
track down and fix bugs a great deal faster using an interactive
debugger. Being able to track down and fiz bugs faster makes me more
productive. Being more productive makes me a better programmer.


I find a debugger (it need not be integrated) is often extremely useful
not only for finding bugs but for testing things. I often use the Perl
debugger to step through my code and set the variables and conditions so
that certain, unexpected error conditions are in force so I can actually
test the error paths in my code. Or when you find a bug, say it's an
incorrectly initialized variable, you can stop after the variable is
set, set it correctly and effectively say "OK, assuming I fixed that,
what's the next bug!".
A software developer should be familiar with a variety of tools, but
not overly dependent on any one. Makefiles are useful in their place,
as are IDE projects. You should know how to use debuggers, also how
to debug when you don't have a debugger.


I choose to use an IDE with an integrated debugger, so don't try to
tell me that I should know how to work without one.


You should know how to use a debugger in general because you don't know
if at the next project/assignment/contract/company you're at you'll have
that IDE to rely on! The general concepts of debugging and or Open
Source/freeware alternatives are invaluable here. That is unless you
have a couple of spare hundreds of dollars to be buying IDEs here and there.

--
<-------- The information went data way -------->

Jul 17 '05 #35

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
So did I, but when I saw people actually working with vi(m) I saw the
power it had.


As far as I am concerned VI sucks, asd so does all its derivatives.
Just reading the manual made me want to puke.


vi does take a little getting used to, but once you do you will realize
the power that it has. No it's not easy reading. You know it's been said
of Unix (and I'd say of vi, emacs, etc) that they are indeed
"user-friendly". It just needs to determine whether or not you are
worthy of being it's friend! ;-)
--
If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland
called Holes?

Jul 17 '05 #36

P: n/a
Daniel Tryba <ne****************@canopus.nl> wrote in message news:<ch*********@news.tue.nl>...
Tony Marston <to**@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: <snip>
Whichever one takes your fancy. There are plenty out there. Just do a search
for "php ide" on google.


First page only:

Hit 2: Zend studio
Great debugger, but editor sucks -> not productive enough unless I
_need_ debugger.
Everybody knows, Zend is slow and not pleasant.
Hit 5: http://devphp.sourceforge.net/
Not for my platform and it appears to be only an editor
Yes, but is very fast.
Hit 6: http://www.xored.com/trustudio
Runs in eclipse, buggy and doesn't appear to have a debugger. So
actually it's only an editor.
Read <http://www.xored.com/trustudio/TruStudio%20Profile.pdf>? The
features are really good (many features are not available in any other
PHP IDEs eg, design view, etc), but I hate eclipse thing. Probably the
cheap alternative will be PHPEclipse <http://www.phpeclipse.de/>
Hit 8: http://www.maguma.com/
Might be promissing, but it just integrates xdebug (never heard of it
before), so I might as well use my own preferred editor with this
debugger?


No idea about xdebug?? <http://www.xdebug.org/> Many IDEs solely
depend on this debugger. Maguma is also good
<http://www.maguma.com/products/?article=Workbench_tour4>

Personally, I like PHPEdit <http://www.waterproof.fr/> There are
so many plugins like document/help generator, code beautifier, project
manager, etc. Some disadvantages include: no Unicode support (big
problem), no code folding, no design view, new licence.

I would also recommend PHP Coder, devphp and Komodo. Komodo also
uses xdebug; but it is not designed only for PHP and it has
multi-platform support.

For Linux users, Komodo might be the better alternative. But,
AFAIK many Linux users seem to be much humourous to use vim, emacs,
etc for PHP;)

I'll be much happy, if I could find a "colourful" IDE as OptiPerl
<http://www.xarka.com/optiperl/features.html> for PHP:)

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com
Jul 17 '05 #37

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined to
become a better programmer without the IDE.
Being a "better programmer" is supposed to encompass both accuracy and
speed. Compared to an IDE a simple text editor is too slow. If being able

to use a primitive tool even though it decreases your productivity is *your*
measure of being a better programmer then I suppose back in the days of
punched cards you would have been one of those who stayed with a primitive
non-interpretive hand punch while the rest of us were using VIPs
(Verifier-Interpreter-Punch).


That would be "faster coder" not "better programmer". I'd rather have good
code slower than bad code faster any day. The ideal, good code faster, is
not a function of the IDE making you a better programmer. It is a function
of a "better programmer" seeking out the tools to help him be a "faster
coder".
If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always be an
amateur code-monkey.


Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right tools" is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of any IDE.


Any IDE is better than no IDE. If you can't find one you like then try
another.


I use one or more IDEs almost every day. But I don't buy into the "Any IDE
is better than no IDE" on the premise that it makes one a "better
programmer", however.

- Virgil
Jul 17 '05 #38

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:I3********@news.boeing.com...
Virgil Green wrote:
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
> You will be more productive if you use an IDE which includes a
> debugger instead of a simple text editor which does not. This will
> help you to track
> down and cure bugs faster which WILL make you a better programmer.

More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were
inclined to become a better programmer without the IDE.


I'm not really that convinced that IDEs make you that much more
productive. I use one at work for development (Visual C++), but at home
I use standalone tools. I do my C compiling on gcc/cygwin and PHP under
the EasyPHP evironment.

For PHP I don't even bother with a debugger, the sort of problems I
normally have are different than the ones from C development. I find
output statements to be about as effective in troubleshooting as would
stepping through.


After having spent many years being forced to use output statements for
debugging purposes I know from personal experience that I can track down

and fix bugs a great deal faster using an interactive debugger. Being able to
track down and fiz bugs faster makes me more productive. Being more
productive makes me a better programmer.
faster coder
> If you don't use the right tools for the job then you will always
> be an amateur code-monkey.

Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right
tools" is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of
any IDE.


Exactly. I've worked in software starting around 1990 or so, and
switching to it pretty much full-time about 10 years ago. I'm in
software R&D for embedded applications these days.

A software developer should be familiar with a variety of tools, but
not overly dependent on any one. Makefiles are useful in their place,
as are IDE projects. You should know how to use debuggers, also how to
debug when you don't have a debugger.


I choose to use an IDE with an integrated debugger, so don't try to tell

me that I should know how to work without one.


We (or I) won't. But when you find yourself in a situation where an IDE (or
one that suits your work style) isn't available and you have to to fix
something quickly, you can decide for yourself whether you should know how
to work without one. Or your client can.

- Virgil
Jul 17 '05 #39

P: n/a
.oO(Tony Marston)
But when somebody states *their* preference in the tone "real programmers
don't need fancy IDE's" that is when I beg to differ.
Sure, but your statements looked the same to me, something like "real
programmers need an IDE" or "you're no real programmer without an IDE".
That does not sound
like a personal preference but more like "nobody needs an IDE".


Agreed.

Micha
Jul 17 '05 #40

P: n/a
.oO(Tony Marston)
As far as I am concerned VI sucks, asd so does all its derivatives. Just
reading the manual made me want to puke.


I wouldn't write my scripts with it, but it's small, installed on nearly
every *nix box and even more important it works in a remote session (SSH
for example). I don't like it, but sometimes I simply need it.

Micha
Jul 17 '05 #41

P: n/a
"Virgil Green" wrote:
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch2g9j$s3b 0f****@news.demon.co.uk...
More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined
to become a better programmer without the IDE.


Being a "better programmer" is supposed to encompass both

accuracy and
speed. Compared to an IDE a simple text editor is too slow. If

being able
to
use a primitive tool even though it decreases your productivity

is *your*
measure of being a better programmer then I suppose back in the

days of
punched cards you would have been one of those who stayed with a

primitive
non-interpretive hand punch while the rest of us were using VIPs
(Verifier-Interpreter-Punch).


That would be "faster coder" not "better programmer". I’d

rather have good
code slower than bad code faster any day. The ideal, good code faster, is
not a function of the IDE making you a better programmer. It is a
function
of a "better programmer" seeking out the tools to help him be a
"faster
coder".
> If you don’t use the right tools for the job then you will always be an> amateur code-monkey.

Hardly. Tools are for convenience and productivity. The term "right
tools" is highly subjective and could very well preclude the use of

any IDE.

Any IDE is better than no IDE. If you can’t find one you

like then try
another.


I use one or more IDEs almost every day. But I don’t buy into
the "Any IDE
is better than no IDE" on the premise that it makes one a "better
programmer", however.

- Virgil


IMHO, we are splitting hairs here.

In my favorite IDE:::
-I breakpoint at a line
-hold mouse over a variable, I see its current value
-I fix a regex statement, and in real time by holding the mouse over
the statement, I can see the result (without having to re-run the
whole script)

Enough said, case closed.

--
http://www.dbForumz.com/ This article was posted by author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.dbForumz.com/PHP-debuggin...ict144423.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.dbForumz.com/eform.php?p=486835
Jul 17 '05 #42

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:

After having spent many years being forced to use output statements
for debugging purposes I know from personal experience that I can
track down and fix bugs a great deal faster using an interactive
debugger. Being able to track down and fiz bugs faster makes me more
productive. Being more productive makes me a better programmer.
Precisely. It make YOU more productive. That doesn't mean it makes
anyone else more productive.
I choose to use an IDE with an integrated debugger, so don't try to
tell me that I should know how to work without one.


It sounds like you already do. A software professional should know how
to use a variety of toolsets and methodologies because he or she may
have to switch to a job that doesn't have the preferred tools. If you
are working in cross-platform development for an embedded system, there
may be no IDE available.

If you want to say, "I sure prefer an IDE, it increases my
productivity", then few will argue with you. I certainly won't. But
that isn't what you said, is it?

Brian

Jul 17 '05 #43

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:
As far as I am concerned VI sucks, asd so does all its derivatives.
Just reading the manual made me want to puke.


Until you need to work on remote system where the only access is via
telnet with a VT100 terminal. Then vi starts look real good.


Brian
Jul 17 '05 #44

P: n/a

"Michael Fesser" <ne*****@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:q4********************************@4ax.com...
.oO(Tony Marston)
But when somebody states *their* preference in the tone "real programmers
don't need fancy IDE's" that is when I beg to differ.


Sure, but your statements looked the same to me, something like "real
programmers need an IDE" or "you're no real programmer without an IDE".


I am not saying that real programmers *need* an IDE with an integrated
debugger, I am saying that such tools enable one to get the job done faster.
Being able to do the same job faster is usually considered to be better.
This is to counter the argument that real programmers do not need an
IDE/Debugger.

Tony Marston
That does not sound
like a personal preference but more like "nobody needs an IDE".


Agreed.

Micha

Jul 17 '05 #45

P: n/a

"Virgil Green" <vj*@DESPAMobsydian.com> wrote in message
news:0F*******************@newssvr22.news.prodigy. com...
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
> More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined to > become a better programmer without the IDE.
Being a "better programmer" is supposed to encompass both accuracy and
speed. Compared to an IDE a simple text editor is too slow. If being able

to
use a primitive tool even though it decreases your productivity is *your*
measure of being a better programmer then I suppose back in the days of
punched cards you would have been one of those who stayed with a
primitive
non-interpretive hand punch while the rest of us were using VIPs
(Verifier-Interpreter-Punch).


That would be "faster coder" not "better programmer".


If I can produce the same quality code with or without an IDE, but an IDE
enables me to work faster, then surely that means better. If programmer A
can do the same job as programmer B but in half the time, then A is twice as
good as B.

Tony Marston
I'd rather have good
code slower than bad code faster any day.
Whoever said that using an IDE gives you speed at the expense of quality?
The ideal, good code faster, is
not a function of the IDE making you a better programmer. It is a function
of a "better programmer" seeking out the tools to help him be a "faster
coder".


Yes, and I can code faster with an IDE+Debugger than without one.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #46

P: n/a

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:I3********@news.boeing.com...
Tony Marston wrote:
If you want to say, "I sure prefer an IDE, it increases my
productivity", then few will argue with you. I certainly won't. But
that isn't what you said, is it?


As you are quoting me that must be exactly what I said.

Tony Marston
Jul 17 '05 #47

P: n/a
Tony Marston wrote:

"Default User" <fi********@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:I3********@news.boeing.com...
Tony Marston wrote:
If you want to say, "I sure prefer an IDE, it increases my
productivity", then few will argue with you. I certainly won't. But
that isn't what you said, is it?


As you are quoting me that must be exactly what I said.

How is that quote? Did you fail to note the preceding phrase "If you
want to say"?

At no time did I state or imply that you had actually said that, in
fact it's abundently clear that I am offering alternative statements to
what you actually said.

Try reading for comprehension.

Brian
Jul 17 '05 #48

P: n/a
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

"Virgil Green" <vj*@DESPAMobsydian.com> wrote in message
news:0F*******************@newssvr22.news.prodigy. com...
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

> More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined
to
> become a better programmer without the IDE.

Being a "better programmer" is supposed to encompass both accuracy and
speed. Compared to an IDE a simple text editor is too slow. If being
able to
use a primitive tool even though it decreases your productivity is
*your* measure of being a better programmer then I suppose back in the days of
punched cards you would have been one of those who stayed with a
primitive
non-interpretive hand punch while the rest of us were using VIPs
(Verifier-Interpreter-Punch).
That would be "faster coder" not "better programmer".


If I can produce the same quality code with or without an IDE, but an IDE
enables me to work faster, then surely that means better. If programmer A
can do the same job as programmer B but in half the time, then A is twice

as good as B.
No, it only means that in the narrow circumstance of Programmer A working in
his preferred IDE that he is a faster coder - not a better programmer...
assuming programmer A and B are producing the same quality code.
Tony Marston
I'd rather have good
code slower than bad code faster any day.


Whoever said that using an IDE gives you speed at the expense of quality?


No one. That was meant to illustrate the difference between a "better
programmer" and a "faster coder". I know more than a few coders who can be
really fast, but their code is crap because they're not good programmers.
Since you have been focusing on the speed and/or productivity provided by an
IDE (and I'll grant that we have not defined the term "productivity"), my
point is that creating code faster is not necessarily better and has little
to do with whether one is a "better programmer".
The ideal, good code faster, is
not a function of the IDE making you a better programmer. It is a function of a "better programmer" seeking out the tools to help him be a "faster
coder".


Yes, and I can code faster with an IDE+Debugger than without one.


But it doesn't make you a better programmer, only a faster coder.
Fortunately, we can assume that the code is that of a "better programmer"
even though the IDE only makes you faster, not better. The "better" part is
separate and distinct from the speed with which you whip out the code. In
fact, another programmer who produces programs that are just as good as you
while using the same IDE you use, but taking longer to do it would
illustrate the fact that you are merely a "better user" of the IDE in
question, rather than the better programmer.

- Virgil

Jul 17 '05 #49

P: n/a

"Virgil Green" <vj*@DESPAMobsydian.com> wrote in message
news:eP*****************@newssvr23.news.prodigy.co m...
"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

"Virgil Green" <vj*@DESPAMobsydian.com> wrote in message
news:0F*******************@newssvr22.news.prodigy. com...
> "Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ch*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> > More productive? Probably. Better programmer? Only if you were inclined > to
>> > become a better programmer without the IDE.
>>
>> Being a "better programmer" is supposed to encompass both accuracy and
>> speed. Compared to an IDE a simple text editor is too slow. If being able > to
>> use a primitive tool even though it decreases your productivity is *your* >> measure of being a better programmer then I suppose back in the days
>> of
>> punched cards you would have been one of those who stayed with a
>> primitive
>> non-interpretive hand punch while the rest of us were using VIPs
>> (Verifier-Interpreter-Punch).
>
> That would be "faster coder" not "better programmer".


If I can produce the same quality code with or without an IDE, but an IDE
enables me to work faster, then surely that means better. If programmer A
can do the same job as programmer B but in half the time, then A is twice

as
good as B.


No, it only means that in the narrow circumstance of Programmer A working
in
his preferred IDE that he is a faster coder - not a better programmer...
assuming programmer A and B are producing the same quality code.


In the commercial world if two programmers can do exactly the same job, but
one can do it faster than the other then he/she is deemed to be *better* as
he/she is more likely to hit the target both in timescale and budget. A slow
programmer is more likely to extend the timescales and budget.
> I'd rather have good
> code slower than bad code faster any day.


Whoever said that using an IDE gives you speed at the expense of quality?


No one. That was meant to illustrate the difference between a "better
programmer" and a "faster coder". I know more than a few coders who can be
really fast, but their code is crap because they're not good programmers.
Since you have been focusing on the speed and/or productivity provided by
an
IDE (and I'll grant that we have not defined the term "productivity"), my
point is that creating code faster is not necessarily better and has
little
to do with whether one is a "better programmer".
> The ideal, good code faster, is
> not a function of the IDE making you a better programmer. It is a
> function of a "better programmer" seeking out the tools to help him
> be a "faster coder".


Yes, and I can code faster with an IDE+Debugger than without one.


But it doesn't make you a better programmer, only a faster coder.
Fortunately, we can assume that the code is that of a "better programmer"
even though the IDE only makes you faster, not better. The "better" part
is
separate and distinct from the speed with which you whip out the code. In
fact, another programmer who produces programs that are just as good as
you
while using the same IDE you use, but taking longer to do it would
illustrate the fact that you are merely a "better user" of the IDE in
question, rather than the better programmer.


I did not say that using an IDE+debugger makes you produce better code, but
that it makes you produce the same quality code but faster, and a faster
programmer is better than a slower programmer.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

Jul 17 '05 #50

79 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.