What C# Needs

[Bill Priess]

Re: What C# Needs

LOL Jon... I hate VS.NET Intellisense 95% of the time... Eclipse is nice,
but I still don't like Intellisense all that much. It does nothing but get
in my way, not to mention the fact that I type faster than it can popup
most of the time (have to love keyboard shortcuts!)...

As for E&C... C#/C++/C never had it and shouldn't have it. Debugging is for
debugging, not for fixes... I have personally heard a lot of VB developers
exclaim "hey, my variable is the wrong value after I fix *insert bug here*.
what happened?!"... Always got a good laugh out of that one.. ;)

Anyhow,

Bill P.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:24:12 +0100, Jon Skeet <skeet@pobox.co m> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Frans Bouma <perseus.news@x s4all.nl> wrote:[color=green]
>> I can't say much, but what I've seen of the intellisense in C# in
>> Whidbey is that it is better than you can possibly dream about. (how
>> does 'you don't need to press cntr-space anymore' sound?)[/color]
>
> That sounds awful to me, actually. I *like* having to press control-
> space, as otherwise I often end up having to press escape to get rid of
> the popup which I often don't want.
>
> I hope anything that is done automatically can be optionally turned
> off...
>
> The main way in which I'd like to see intellisense improved is to make
> the popups more useful when they *do* appear - rather than having a
> single line with arrows on when there are multiple options, show some
> number (eg 8) of the options at a time, with a scroll bar.
>
> FWIW, Eclipse is the first IDE which gave me an autocomplete/intellisense
> I actually like. VS.NET could do a lot worse than taking a few leaves out
> of Eclipse's book. (I gather it's finally getting refactoring though.
> Better late than never.)
>[/color]



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Derek LaZard]

Re: What C# Needs

Hi Chris. IMO, those who choose C# probably have used C/C++; at least this
is the case with me... :)

[BTW, I've been hearing alot about VB.NET, tho; I will probably port
something just to learn it...]

Derek LaZard


"Chris Glasser" <cdglasser@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:e5jyb9BWDH A.3924@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> If you like all of these features in VB, why not just use VB? Does C#[/color]
offer[color=blue]
> you something that VB does not that you consider it to be worth the
> aggravation of not having the VB features you like?
>
> (All references to VB mean VB.NET, not VB6)
>
> Chris G.
>
> "Keith K" <kpkeller@linux mail.org> wrote in message
> news:5a7701c357 69$005f1600$a00 1280a@phx.gbl.. .[color=green]
> > Having developed with VB since 1992, I am now VERY
> > interested in C#. I've written several applications with
> > C# and I do enjoy the language.
> >
> > What C# Needs:
> >
> > There are a few things that I do believe MSFT should do to
> > improve C#, however.
> >
> > I know that in the "Whidbey" release of VS.NET currently
> > under development, VB.NET will get good ole "edit-and-
> > continue" back. Hurray! What's unfortunate (and correct
> > me if I'm wrong) is that C# developers won't enjoy this
> > feature. This is very unfortunate because THAT feature
> > should exist in ALL programming languages.
> >
> > Another thing that C# needs is better intellisense (as
> > good as vb.net). I've found a few instances where I hit
> > ctrl+spacebar and nothing happens in C#. I write the SAME
> > exact piece of code in VB.NET and hit ctrl+spacebar and
> > the intellisense pops up just fine.
> >
> > It's not like C# developers don't want to have these nice
> > visual and functional features enjoyed by VBers available
> > to them if they "choose" to use them. Keep in mind the
> > word "choose". Don't FORCE developers to have to use
> > these features. Allow them to disable or enable them as
> > needed. It's ONE development environment folks, why can't
> > all .NET languages using that dev env benefit?[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Derek LaZard]

Re: What C# Needs

Hi Chris. IMO, those who choose C# probably have used C/C++; at least this
is the case with me... :)

[BTW, I've been hearing alot about VB.NET, tho; I will probably port
something just to learn it...]

Derek LaZard


"Chris Glasser" <cdglasser@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:e5jyb9BWDH A.3924@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> If you like all of these features in VB, why not just use VB? Does C#[/color]
offer[color=blue]
> you something that VB does not that you consider it to be worth the
> aggravation of not having the VB features you like?
>
> (All references to VB mean VB.NET, not VB6)
>
> Chris G.
>
> "Keith K" <kpkeller@linux mail.org> wrote in message
> news:5a7701c357 69$005f1600$a00 1280a@phx.gbl.. .[color=green]
> > Having developed with VB since 1992, I am now VERY
> > interested in C#. I've written several applications with
> > C# and I do enjoy the language.
> >
> > What C# Needs:
> >
> > There are a few things that I do believe MSFT should do to
> > improve C#, however.
> >
> > I know that in the "Whidbey" release of VS.NET currently
> > under development, VB.NET will get good ole "edit-and-
> > continue" back. Hurray! What's unfortunate (and correct
> > me if I'm wrong) is that C# developers won't enjoy this
> > feature. This is very unfortunate because THAT feature
> > should exist in ALL programming languages.
> >
> > Another thing that C# needs is better intellisense (as
> > good as vb.net). I've found a few instances where I hit
> > ctrl+spacebar and nothing happens in C#. I write the SAME
> > exact piece of code in VB.NET and hit ctrl+spacebar and
> > the intellisense pops up just fine.
> >
> > It's not like C# developers don't want to have these nice
> > visual and functional features enjoyed by VBers available
> > to them if they "choose" to use them. Keep in mind the
> > word "choose". Don't FORCE developers to have to use
> > these features. Allow them to disable or enable them as
> > needed. It's ONE development environment folks, why can't
> > all .NET languages using that dev env benefit?[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Derek LaZard]

Re: What C# Needs

Hi Keith.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>I've found a few instances where I hit
>>ctrl+spaceb ar and nothing happens in C#. [/color][/color]

I haven't had any problems...Occa sionally I was getting a message saying something like "please standby building intellisense cache..."; but haven't noticed it lately...
Intellisense and mouse-over data windows are always there on my workstation...

[BTW, are you running alot of background/system tasks...]
[...I didn't know about the ctrl+spacebar shortcut--it works nice...]

Derek LaZard


"Keith K" <kpkeller@linux mail.org> wrote in message news:5a7701c357 69$005f1600$a00 1280a@phx.gbl.. .[color=blue]
> Having developed with VB since 1992, I am now VERY
> interested in C#. I've written several applications with
> C# and I do enjoy the language.
>
> What C# Needs:
>
> There are a few things that I do believe MSFT should do to
> improve C#, however.
>
> I know that in the "Whidbey" release of VS.NET currently
> under development, VB.NET will get good ole "edit-and-
> continue" back. Hurray! What's unfortunate (and correct
> me if I'm wrong) is that C# developers won't enjoy this
> feature. This is very unfortunate because THAT feature
> should exist in ALL programming languages.
>
> Another thing that C# needs is better intellisense (as
> good as vb.net). I've found a few instances where I hit
> ctrl+spacebar and nothing happens in C#. I write the SAME
> exact piece of code in VB.NET and hit ctrl+spacebar and
> the intellisense pops up just fine.
>
> It's not like C# developers don't want to have these nice
> visual and functional features enjoyed by VBers available
> to them if they "choose" to use them. Keep in mind the
> word "choose". Don't FORCE developers to have to use
> these features. Allow them to disable or enable them as
> needed. It's ONE development environment folks, why can't
> all .NET languages using that dev env benefit?[/color]

[Derek LaZard]

Re: What C# Needs

Hi Keith.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>I've found a few instances where I hit
>>ctrl+spaceb ar and nothing happens in C#. [/color][/color]

I haven't had any problems...Occa sionally I was getting a message saying something like "please standby building intellisense cache..."; but haven't noticed it lately...
Intellisense and mouse-over data windows are always there on my workstation...

[BTW, are you running alot of background/system tasks...]
[...I didn't know about the ctrl+spacebar shortcut--it works nice...]

Derek LaZard


"Keith K" <kpkeller@linux mail.org> wrote in message news:5a7701c357 69$005f1600$a00 1280a@phx.gbl.. .[color=blue]
> Having developed with VB since 1992, I am now VERY
> interested in C#. I've written several applications with
> C# and I do enjoy the language.
>
> What C# Needs:
>
> There are a few things that I do believe MSFT should do to
> improve C#, however.
>
> I know that in the "Whidbey" release of VS.NET currently
> under development, VB.NET will get good ole "edit-and-
> continue" back. Hurray! What's unfortunate (and correct
> me if I'm wrong) is that C# developers won't enjoy this
> feature. This is very unfortunate because THAT feature
> should exist in ALL programming languages.
>
> Another thing that C# needs is better intellisense (as
> good as vb.net). I've found a few instances where I hit
> ctrl+spacebar and nothing happens in C#. I write the SAME
> exact piece of code in VB.NET and hit ctrl+spacebar and
> the intellisense pops up just fine.
>
> It's not like C# developers don't want to have these nice
> visual and functional features enjoyed by VBers available
> to them if they "choose" to use them. Keep in mind the
> word "choose". Don't FORCE developers to have to use
> these features. Allow them to disable or enable them as
> needed. It's ONE development environment folks, why can't
> all .NET languages using that dev env benefit?[/color]

[Frank Mulvenny]

Re: What C# Needs

Frans Bouma wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I'm glad C# DOESN'T get E&C, so C# developers learn the GOOD way
> of debugging applications instead of fixing code in the debugger. The
> debugger is for testing, not for altering code.[/color]

Argh! No no no! You are TOTALLY wrong on that! Edit & Continue is an
absolute timesaving godsend. As an ex VB/C++ programmer I can swear to that.
However, I wouldnt go back to VB from C# even if C# didnt have edit &
continue, because I much prefer the terse C# syntax. But I am living in the
certainty that E&C will return at some time in the future!

BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug', and we all
know that's rubbish! :-)

(This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))

[Frank Mulvenny]

Re: What C# Needs

Frans Bouma wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I'm glad C# DOESN'T get E&C, so C# developers learn the GOOD way
> of debugging applications instead of fixing code in the debugger. The
> debugger is for testing, not for altering code.[/color]

Argh! No no no! You are TOTALLY wrong on that! Edit & Continue is an
absolute timesaving godsend. As an ex VB/C++ programmer I can swear to that.
However, I wouldnt go back to VB from C# even if C# didnt have edit &
continue, because I much prefer the terse C# syntax. But I am living in the
certainty that E&C will return at some time in the future!

BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug', and we all
know that's rubbish! :-)

(This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))

[Frans Bouma]

Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

"Frank Mulvenny" <frankmulvenny@ info.r.us> wrote in
news:HDTWa.959$ xu4.10603585@ne ws-text.cableinet. net:
[color=blue]
> Frans Bouma wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> I'm glad C# DOESN'T get E&C, so C# developers learn the GOOD way
>> of debugging applications instead of fixing code in the debugger. The
>> debugger is for testing, not for altering code.[/color]
>
> Argh! No no no! You are TOTALLY wrong on that! Edit & Continue is an
> absolute timesaving godsend. As an ex VB/C++ programmer I can swear to
> that. However, I wouldnt go back to VB from C# even if C# didnt have
> edit & continue, because I much prefer the terse C# syntax. But I am
> living in the certainty that E&C will return at some time in the future![/color]

If you need EnC to develop good software, you are not thinking when
designing the software, nor when developing the software. Sorry to be
harsh, but all the "nooo, we want it and you are wrong and do not
understand what you're talking about" crap starts to get on my nerves
actually.

If you need EnC, start thinking about: why aren't we developing
software while it is running anyway? thus INSIDE a debugger?
[color=blue]
> BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
> interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug', and we
> all know that's rubbish! :-)[/color]

No, 'we' do not. Reading back your code is good, because it is
NECESSARY to do so when you are checking the algorithm against the code-
representation of that algorithm you wrote.

Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
software:

http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx

If you still need E&C in every day software development, I truly
hope I'll never have to work with the software you're writing, sorry. The
reason for that is: if you KNOW what to fix, you fix it SO IT will then be
fixed. If you DO NOT know what you're doing you need a runtime-verifier to
verify what you're doing, and if you can't live without E&C you definitely
make a hell of a lot of 'stupidity' mistakes, which is not in favor of you
either.
[color=blue]
> (This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))[/color]

feelings are things you have for your wife/partner, your pets, your
children etc. When it comes to software, you have to think, not feel. If
yuo can't proof E&C is more productive, you can feel all you want, but you
do not have a strong case. I tried to proof E&C is not a feature that's
useful, and besides some smalltalk/lisp interpreter fellow who didn't
understand what the difference between an interpreted language and a
compiled language is, no-one could proof I'm wrong.

I write a hell of a lot of lines of code per day, but I fire up the
debugger three or four times a day to test some mistery behaviour I can't
find back in my algorithm implementations or in my algorithms itself. Look
at it this way: if you write some code, and you run it, and it misbehaves
and you do not understand why when yuo SEE the misbehaviour, you do not
understand the code you've just written.

FB

--
Solutions Design : http://www.sd.nl
My open source .NET Software : http://www.sd.nl/software
My .NET Blog : http://weblogs.asp.net/FBouma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frans Bouma]

Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

"Frank Mulvenny" <frankmulvenny@ info.r.us> wrote in
news:HDTWa.959$ xu4.10603585@ne ws-text.cableinet. net:
[color=blue]
> Frans Bouma wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> I'm glad C# DOESN'T get E&C, so C# developers learn the GOOD way
>> of debugging applications instead of fixing code in the debugger. The
>> debugger is for testing, not for altering code.[/color]
>
> Argh! No no no! You are TOTALLY wrong on that! Edit & Continue is an
> absolute timesaving godsend. As an ex VB/C++ programmer I can swear to
> that. However, I wouldnt go back to VB from C# even if C# didnt have
> edit & continue, because I much prefer the terse C# syntax. But I am
> living in the certainty that E&C will return at some time in the future![/color]

If you need EnC to develop good software, you are not thinking when
designing the software, nor when developing the software. Sorry to be
harsh, but all the "nooo, we want it and you are wrong and do not
understand what you're talking about" crap starts to get on my nerves
actually.

If you need EnC, start thinking about: why aren't we developing
software while it is running anyway? thus INSIDE a debugger?
[color=blue]
> BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
> interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug', and we
> all know that's rubbish! :-)[/color]

No, 'we' do not. Reading back your code is good, because it is
NECESSARY to do so when you are checking the algorithm against the code-
representation of that algorithm you wrote.

Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
software:

http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx

If you still need E&C in every day software development, I truly
hope I'll never have to work with the software you're writing, sorry. The
reason for that is: if you KNOW what to fix, you fix it SO IT will then be
fixed. If you DO NOT know what you're doing you need a runtime-verifier to
verify what you're doing, and if you can't live without E&C you definitely
make a hell of a lot of 'stupidity' mistakes, which is not in favor of you
either.
[color=blue]
> (This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))[/color]

feelings are things you have for your wife/partner, your pets, your
children etc. When it comes to software, you have to think, not feel. If
yuo can't proof E&C is more productive, you can feel all you want, but you
do not have a strong case. I tried to proof E&C is not a feature that's
useful, and besides some smalltalk/lisp interpreter fellow who didn't
understand what the difference between an interpreted language and a
compiled language is, no-one could proof I'm wrong.

I write a hell of a lot of lines of code per day, but I fire up the
debugger three or four times a day to test some mistery behaviour I can't
find back in my algorithm implementations or in my algorithms itself. Look
at it this way: if you write some code, and you run it, and it misbehaves
and you do not understand why when yuo SEE the misbehaviour, you do not
understand the code you've just written.

FB

--
Solutions Design : http://www.sd.nl
My open source .NET Software : http://www.sd.nl/software
My .NET Blog : http://weblogs.asp.net/FBouma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frank Mulvenny]

Re: Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

Frans Bouma wrote:[color=blue]
> "Frank Mulvenny" <frankmulvenny@ info.r.us> wrote in
> news:HDTWa.959$ xu4.10603585@ne ws-text.cableinet. net:
>[color=green]
>> Frans Bouma wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> I'm glad C# DOESN'T get E&C, so C# developers learn the GOOD way
>>> of debugging applications instead of fixing code in the debugger.
>>> The debugger is for testing, not for altering code.[/color]
>>
>> Argh! No no no! You are TOTALLY wrong on that! Edit & Continue is an
>> absolute timesaving godsend. As an ex VB/C++ programmer I can swear
>> to that. However, I wouldnt go back to VB from C# even if C# didnt
>> have edit & continue, because I much prefer the terse C# syntax. But
>> I am living in the certainty that E&C will return at some time in
>> the future![/color]
>
> If you need EnC to develop good software, you are not thinking
> when designing the software, nor when developing the software. Sorry
> to be harsh, but all the "nooo, we want it and you are wrong and do
> not understand what you're talking about" crap starts to get on my
> nerves actually.
>
> If you need EnC, start thinking about: why aren't we developing
> software while it is running anyway? thus INSIDE a debugger?[/color]

It is definately a useful facility to have. In fact, since developing
software involves debugging it, we are already developing software in the
debugger. E&C extends the power and flexibility of that debugging process.
Also, E&C is useful even outside the context of debugging as such. One can
use it to explore the facilities of some utility classes perhaps - in a live
situation. Can be very useful again.


[color=blue][color=green]
>> BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
>> interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug',
>> and we all know that's rubbish! :-)[/color]
>
> No, 'we' do not. Reading back your code is good, because it is
> NECESSARY to do so when you are checking the algorithm against the
> code- representation of that algorithm you wrote.[/color]

Of course, reading your code to try and work out the problem is
a good way of debugging - that's a no-brainer.
But it's not neccesarily the only or quickest way in all cases.

This argument is one of a long line of obsolete arguments. It is the direct
descendent of that old chestnut:
"Writing your program, and having to send it
off to the computer to be batch executed, and
getting the results the next day is good
because it forces you to make sure it doesnt
have bugs."

Pure hairshirt mentality, with a soupcon of elitism.

[color=blue]
> Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
> software:
> http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx
>
> If you still need E&C in every day software development, I truly
> hope I'll never have to work with the software you're writing, sorry.[/color]

What other debugging facilities are beyond the pale and to be used only by
the plebians I wonder?
Changing the value of a variable?
Being able to see the value of a variable?
Altering the execution point?
Of course all these things are acceptable, because these are all useful
time-saving things to be able to do.
And if it is 'morally' acceptable for one to be able to alter the state of a
program by changing variables, why not code?

[color=blue]
> The reason for that is: if you KNOW what to fix, you fix it SO IT
> will then be fixed.[/color]

The same could be said for compile errors, so therefore perhaps we shouldnt
have fast compilers that let us use the compiler as a crutch to find our
coding errors. This is the same argument as is being made against E&C.

[color=blue]
> If you DO NOT know what you're doing you need a
> runtime-verifier to verify what you're doing, and if you can't live
> without E&C you definitely make a hell of a lot of 'stupidity'
> mistakes, which is not in favor of you either.[/color]

Of course we can live without E&C, and no doubt many other developments of
the past decades.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> (This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))[/color]
>
> feelings are things you have for your wife/partner, your pets,
> your children etc. When it comes to software, you have to think, not
> feel. If yuo can't proof E&C is more productive, you can feel all you
> want, but you do not have a strong case.[/color]

I have found it to be very useful. It's not essential, but then neither are
fast compilers, or intellisense. Or syntax colouring. However, all these
things are useful so long as one can avoid having an elitist philosophy that
considers them fit only for 'bad programmers'.

[color=blue]
> I tried to proof E&C is not a feature that's useful and besides some[/color]
smalltalk/lisp interpreter[color=blue]
> fellow who didn't understand what the difference between an
> interpreted language and a compiled language is, no-one could proof
> I'm wrong.[/color]

I presume you're talking about a previous thread in some discussion forum.
Do you have a link?
[color=blue]
> I write a hell of a lot of lines of code per day, but I fire up
> the debugger three or four times a day to test some mistery behaviour
> I can't find back in my algorithm implementations or in my algorithms
> itself. Look at it this way: if you write some code, and you run it,
> and it misbehaves and you do not understand why when yuo SEE the
> misbehaviour, you do not understand the code you've just written.[/color]

Sorry, but your reply has displayed a quite disgusting degree of
condescension and arrogance.
I am disapointed that you should feel the need to resort to this kind of
stuff.
You seem to have a hair-trigger superiority complex! ;-)

Try and remember that in the end, the presence of E&C facility does no harm
to the 'real programmers' such as yourself, who will at no point be required
to lower themselves to making use of it.

[Frank Mulvenny]

Re: Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

Frans Bouma wrote:[color=blue]
> "Frank Mulvenny" <frankmulvenny@ info.r.us> wrote in
> news:HDTWa.959$ xu4.10603585@ne ws-text.cableinet. net:
>[color=green]
>> Frans Bouma wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> I'm glad C# DOESN'T get E&C, so C# developers learn the GOOD way
>>> of debugging applications instead of fixing code in the debugger.
>>> The debugger is for testing, not for altering code.[/color]
>>
>> Argh! No no no! You are TOTALLY wrong on that! Edit & Continue is an
>> absolute timesaving godsend. As an ex VB/C++ programmer I can swear
>> to that. However, I wouldnt go back to VB from C# even if C# didnt
>> have edit & continue, because I much prefer the terse C# syntax. But
>> I am living in the certainty that E&C will return at some time in
>> the future![/color]
>
> If you need EnC to develop good software, you are not thinking
> when designing the software, nor when developing the software. Sorry
> to be harsh, but all the "nooo, we want it and you are wrong and do
> not understand what you're talking about" crap starts to get on my
> nerves actually.
>
> If you need EnC, start thinking about: why aren't we developing
> software while it is running anyway? thus INSIDE a debugger?[/color]

It is definately a useful facility to have. In fact, since developing
software involves debugging it, we are already developing software in the
debugger. E&C extends the power and flexibility of that debugging process.
Also, E&C is useful even outside the context of debugging as such. One can
use it to explore the facilities of some utility classes perhaps - in a live
situation. Can be very useful again.


[color=blue][color=green]
>> BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
>> interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug',
>> and we all know that's rubbish! :-)[/color]
>
> No, 'we' do not. Reading back your code is good, because it is
> NECESSARY to do so when you are checking the algorithm against the
> code- representation of that algorithm you wrote.[/color]

Of course, reading your code to try and work out the problem is
a good way of debugging - that's a no-brainer.
But it's not neccesarily the only or quickest way in all cases.

This argument is one of a long line of obsolete arguments. It is the direct
descendent of that old chestnut:
"Writing your program, and having to send it
off to the computer to be batch executed, and
getting the results the next day is good
because it forces you to make sure it doesnt
have bugs."

Pure hairshirt mentality, with a soupcon of elitism.

[color=blue]
> Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
> software:
> http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx
>
> If you still need E&C in every day software development, I truly
> hope I'll never have to work with the software you're writing, sorry.[/color]

What other debugging facilities are beyond the pale and to be used only by
the plebians I wonder?
Changing the value of a variable?
Being able to see the value of a variable?
Altering the execution point?
Of course all these things are acceptable, because these are all useful
time-saving things to be able to do.
And if it is 'morally' acceptable for one to be able to alter the state of a
program by changing variables, why not code?

[color=blue]
> The reason for that is: if you KNOW what to fix, you fix it SO IT
> will then be fixed.[/color]

The same could be said for compile errors, so therefore perhaps we shouldnt
have fast compilers that let us use the compiler as a crutch to find our
coding errors. This is the same argument as is being made against E&C.

[color=blue]
> If you DO NOT know what you're doing you need a
> runtime-verifier to verify what you're doing, and if you can't live
> without E&C you definitely make a hell of a lot of 'stupidity'
> mistakes, which is not in favor of you either.[/color]

Of course we can live without E&C, and no doubt many other developments of
the past decades.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> (This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))[/color]
>
> feelings are things you have for your wife/partner, your pets,
> your children etc. When it comes to software, you have to think, not
> feel. If yuo can't proof E&C is more productive, you can feel all you
> want, but you do not have a strong case.[/color]

I have found it to be very useful. It's not essential, but then neither are
fast compilers, or intellisense. Or syntax colouring. However, all these
things are useful so long as one can avoid having an elitist philosophy that
considers them fit only for 'bad programmers'.

[color=blue]
> I tried to proof E&C is not a feature that's useful and besides some[/color]
smalltalk/lisp interpreter[color=blue]
> fellow who didn't understand what the difference between an
> interpreted language and a compiled language is, no-one could proof
> I'm wrong.[/color]

I presume you're talking about a previous thread in some discussion forum.
Do you have a link?
[color=blue]
> I write a hell of a lot of lines of code per day, but I fire up
> the debugger three or four times a day to test some mistery behaviour
> I can't find back in my algorithm implementations or in my algorithms
> itself. Look at it this way: if you write some code, and you run it,
> and it misbehaves and you do not understand why when yuo SEE the
> misbehaviour, you do not understand the code you've just written.[/color]

Sorry, but your reply has displayed a quite disgusting degree of
condescension and arrogance.
I am disapointed that you should feel the need to resort to this kind of
stuff.
You seem to have a hair-trigger superiority complex! ;-)

Try and remember that in the end, the presence of E&C facility does no harm
to the 'real programmers' such as yourself, who will at no point be required
to lower themselves to making use of it.

[Frans Bouma]

Re: Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

"Frank Mulvenny" <frankmulvenny@ info.r.us> wrote in
news:FY5Xa.1352 $g64.15187156@n ews-text.cableinet. net:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Frans Bouma wrote:[/color]
>> If you need EnC to develop good software, you are not thinking
>> when designing the software, nor when developing the software. Sorry
>> to be harsh, but all the "nooo, we want it and you are wrong and do
>> not understand what you're talking about" crap starts to get on my
>> nerves actually.
>>
>> If you need EnC, start thinking about: why aren't we developing
>> software while it is running anyway? thus INSIDE a debugger?[/color]
>
> It is definately a useful facility to have. In fact, since developing
> software involves debugging it, we are already developing software in
> the debugger.[/color]

No, we're not. THere is no runtime information available when we're
typing code-text.
[color=blue]
> E&C extends the power and flexibility of that debugging
> process. Also, E&C is useful even outside the context of debugging as
> such. One can use it to explore the facilities of some utility classes
> perhaps - in a live situation. Can be very useful again.[/color]

I don't see why. Edit&Continue is about altering code at runtime
and immediately (well, after the recompile) see the effect of that
altering. That's it.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
>>> interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug',
>>> and we all know that's rubbish! :-)[/color]
>>
>> No, 'we' do not. Reading back your code is good, because it is
>> NECESSARY to do so when you are checking the algorithm against the
>> code- representation of that algorithm you wrote.[/color]
>
> Of course, reading your code to try and work out the problem is
> a good way of debugging - that's a no-brainer.
> But it's not neccesarily the only or quickest way in all cases.[/color]

quickest? how do you measure that? I like to write code that is
solid and bugfree. And I want to proof that not by stepping through a
debugger but by other means, like the ones we all learned during our CS
study.
[color=blue]
> This argument is one of a long line of obsolete arguments. It is the
> direct descendent of that old chestnut:
> "Writing your program, and having to send it
> off to the computer to be batch executed, and
> getting the results the next day is good
> because it forces you to make sure it doesnt
> have bugs."
>
> Pure hairshirt mentality, with a soupcon of elitism.[/color]

So, you think the people who write OS kernels use E&C? Ever
debugged an OS kernel? Or ever thought of how a remote debugger works when
you're debugging that ASP.NET website application? How are you going
implement E&C in these situations? You can't. And especially debugging
ASP.NET applications is common these days.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
>> software:
>> http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx[/color][/color]

Read the article in the url above about debugging software. Then
come back and tell me you use E&C through all the 4 categories of bugs.
I'm pretty sure you don't use E&C nor WONT use E&C in 3 of the 4
categories, which are the majority of bugs in software.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you still need E&C in every day software development, I truly
>> hope I'll never have to work with the software you're writing, sorry.[/color]
>
> What other debugging facilities are beyond the pale and to be used only
> by the plebians I wonder?
> Changing the value of a variable?
> Being able to see the value of a variable?
> Altering the execution point?
> Of course all these things are acceptable, because these are all useful
> time-saving things to be able to do.
> And if it is 'morally' acceptable for one to be able to alter the state
> of a program by changing variables, why not code?[/color]

If I tell you I never alter variables in a debugger, do you believe
me?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The reason for that is: if you KNOW what to fix, you fix it SO IT
>> will then be fixed.[/color]
>
> The same could be said for compile errors, so therefore perhaps we
> shouldnt have fast compilers that let us use the compiler as a crutch to
> find our coding errors. This is the same argument as is being made
> against E&C.[/color]

If there was some kind of runtime analysis software we could use,
it would a big step forward. It would be great to have pre/post conditions
in the code itself, so the compiler could check them, so we could use
compile time to highlight bugs.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you DO NOT know what you're doing you need a
>> runtime-verifier to verify what you're doing, and if you can't live
>> without E&C you definitely make a hell of a lot of 'stupidity'
>> mistakes, which is not in favor of you either.[/color]
>
> Of course we can live without E&C, and no doubt many other developments
> of the past decades.[/color]

It's not about if we can live with or without having it, it's
about:
1) There is a limited amount of time. Microsoft has stated in the
VS.NET newsgroup friday that there was a choice: OR refactoring OR E&C in
C#. They clearly made the choice for refactoring in C# and E&C in VB.NET
2) E&C encourages developers to use it as THE debugging tool for
their software, while these developers should be encouraged to debug by
reading their code and test the code against the algorithms they
implemented. Look at the developers using E&C: are they reading their code
and see with pre/post conditions if their code matches a PROVED algorithm?
10 to 1 they don't: they alter code in the debugger, re-run the method and
hope the values they see now in the locals window are the ones that should
be there.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> (This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))[/color]
>>
>> feelings are things you have for your wife/partner, your pets,
>> your children etc. When it comes to software, you have to think, not
>> feel. If yuo can't proof E&C is more productive, you can feel all you
>> want, but you do not have a strong case.[/color]
>
> I have found it to be very useful. It's not essential, but then neither
> are fast compilers, or intellisense. Or syntax colouring. However, all
> these things are useful so long as one can avoid having an elitist
> philosophy that considers them fit only for 'bad programmers'.[/color]

I don't see what the relation between intellisense and E&C is. You
clearly do not understand what debugging is all about, or for that matter,
what 'programming' stands for. Hint: not typing in code.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I tried to proof E&C is not a feature that's useful and besides some[/color]
> smalltalk/lisp interpreter[color=green]
>> fellow who didn't understand what the difference between an
>> interpreted language and a compiled language is, no-one could proof
>> I'm wrong.[/color]
>
> I presume you're talking about a previous thread in some discussion
> forum. Do you have a link?[/color]

see the blog link above
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I write a hell of a lot of lines of code per day, but I fire up
>> the debugger three or four times a day to test some mistery behaviour
>> I can't find back in my algorithm implementations or in my algorithms
>> itself. Look at it this way: if you write some code, and you run it,
>> and it misbehaves and you do not understand why when yuo SEE the
>> misbehaviour, you do not understand the code you've just written.[/color]
>
> Sorry, but your reply has displayed a quite disgusting degree of
> condescension and arrogance.[/color]

Hmm, having an opinion is being arrogant? Why? I can explain and
have explained it why E&C is bad debugging practise and should be avoided
and if a tool DOES make you avoid it (because it doesn't have the feature)
you as the developer will be a better software engineer in the end.
[color=blue]
> I am disapointed that you should feel the need to resort to this kind of
> stuff. You seem to have a hair-trigger superiority complex! ;-)[/color]

Well, from time to time I get a little tired of the people who
think they are professionals (I'm not talking about you personally) but
show a lack of knowledge about what software engineering is all about. And
instead of bashing these people that they're not what they think they are,
which is rude and counterproducti ve, it's better to educate them and show
them why they're wrong and how they can improve their skills and knowledge
and THUS their software they're making. About a decade ago, my mentor at
the uni spend extra time to enlighen me why the ideas I had about
designing / engineering software were not that good and also told me why.
I'll never forget that, and if I can open other people's eyes I won't stop
doing so. So, no, this is not about being arrogant. Yes I personally think
I'm very good at software engineering, but not the best. No wonder, since
I do it for a loooong time already. What's wrong with trying to teach some
knowledge I learned during the past 10 years?
[color=blue]
> Try and remember that in the end, the presence of E&C facility does no
> harm to the 'real programmers' such as yourself, who will at no point be
> required to lower themselves to making use of it.[/color]

Frank, even if MS was able to implement all the features in the
world into vs.net, I still would be writing these texts. It's not about a
silly feature I won't use and you will. It's about the philosophy behind
the REASON why you would use the feature and I won't.

FB

--
Solutions Design : http://www.sd.nl
My open source .NET Software : http://www.sd.nl/software
My .NET Blog : http://weblogs.asp.net/FBouma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frans Bouma]

Re: Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

"Frank Mulvenny" <frankmulvenny@ info.r.us> wrote in
news:FY5Xa.1352 $g64.15187156@n ews-text.cableinet. net:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Frans Bouma wrote:[/color]
>> If you need EnC to develop good software, you are not thinking
>> when designing the software, nor when developing the software. Sorry
>> to be harsh, but all the "nooo, we want it and you are wrong and do
>> not understand what you're talking about" crap starts to get on my
>> nerves actually.
>>
>> If you need EnC, start thinking about: why aren't we developing
>> software while it is running anyway? thus INSIDE a debugger?[/color]
>
> It is definately a useful facility to have. In fact, since developing
> software involves debugging it, we are already developing software in
> the debugger.[/color]

No, we're not. THere is no runtime information available when we're
typing code-text.
[color=blue]
> E&C extends the power and flexibility of that debugging
> process. Also, E&C is useful even outside the context of debugging as
> such. One can use it to explore the facilities of some utility classes
> perhaps - in a live situation. Can be very useful again.[/color]

I don't see why. Edit&Continue is about altering code at runtime
and immediately (well, after the recompile) see the effect of that
altering. That's it.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> BTW, some people used to (and still do) argue that 'you dont need an
>>> interactive debugger, reading the code is the GOOD way to debug',
>>> and we all know that's rubbish! :-)[/color]
>>
>> No, 'we' do not. Reading back your code is good, because it is
>> NECESSARY to do so when you are checking the algorithm against the
>> code- representation of that algorithm you wrote.[/color]
>
> Of course, reading your code to try and work out the problem is
> a good way of debugging - that's a no-brainer.
> But it's not neccesarily the only or quickest way in all cases.[/color]

quickest? how do you measure that? I like to write code that is
solid and bugfree. And I want to proof that not by stepping through a
debugger but by other means, like the ones we all learned during our CS
study.
[color=blue]
> This argument is one of a long line of obsolete arguments. It is the
> direct descendent of that old chestnut:
> "Writing your program, and having to send it
> off to the computer to be batch executed, and
> getting the results the next day is good
> because it forces you to make sure it doesnt
> have bugs."
>
> Pure hairshirt mentality, with a soupcon of elitism.[/color]

So, you think the people who write OS kernels use E&C? Ever
debugged an OS kernel? Or ever thought of how a remote debugger works when
you're debugging that ASP.NET website application? How are you going
implement E&C in these situations? You can't. And especially debugging
ASP.NET applications is common these days.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
>> software:
>> http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx[/color][/color]

Read the article in the url above about debugging software. Then
come back and tell me you use E&C through all the 4 categories of bugs.
I'm pretty sure you don't use E&C nor WONT use E&C in 3 of the 4
categories, which are the majority of bugs in software.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you still need E&C in every day software development, I truly
>> hope I'll never have to work with the software you're writing, sorry.[/color]
>
> What other debugging facilities are beyond the pale and to be used only
> by the plebians I wonder?
> Changing the value of a variable?
> Being able to see the value of a variable?
> Altering the execution point?
> Of course all these things are acceptable, because these are all useful
> time-saving things to be able to do.
> And if it is 'morally' acceptable for one to be able to alter the state
> of a program by changing variables, why not code?[/color]

If I tell you I never alter variables in a debugger, do you believe
me?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The reason for that is: if you KNOW what to fix, you fix it SO IT
>> will then be fixed.[/color]
>
> The same could be said for compile errors, so therefore perhaps we
> shouldnt have fast compilers that let us use the compiler as a crutch to
> find our coding errors. This is the same argument as is being made
> against E&C.[/color]

If there was some kind of runtime analysis software we could use,
it would a big step forward. It would be great to have pre/post conditions
in the code itself, so the compiler could check them, so we could use
compile time to highlight bugs.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you DO NOT know what you're doing you need a
>> runtime-verifier to verify what you're doing, and if you can't live
>> without E&C you definitely make a hell of a lot of 'stupidity'
>> mistakes, which is not in favor of you either.[/color]
>
> Of course we can live without E&C, and no doubt many other developments
> of the past decades.[/color]

It's not about if we can live with or without having it, it's
about:
1) There is a limited amount of time. Microsoft has stated in the
VS.NET newsgroup friday that there was a choice: OR refactoring OR E&C in
C#. They clearly made the choice for refactoring in C# and E&C in VB.NET
2) E&C encourages developers to use it as THE debugging tool for
their software, while these developers should be encouraged to debug by
reading their code and test the code against the algorithms they
implemented. Look at the developers using E&C: are they reading their code
and see with pre/post conditions if their code matches a PROVED algorithm?
10 to 1 they don't: they alter code in the debugger, re-run the method and
hope the values they see now in the locals window are the ones that should
be there.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> (This wasnt a flame, but I do feel strongly about this issue ;-))[/color]
>>
>> feelings are things you have for your wife/partner, your pets,
>> your children etc. When it comes to software, you have to think, not
>> feel. If yuo can't proof E&C is more productive, you can feel all you
>> want, but you do not have a strong case.[/color]
>
> I have found it to be very useful. It's not essential, but then neither
> are fast compilers, or intellisense. Or syntax colouring. However, all
> these things are useful so long as one can avoid having an elitist
> philosophy that considers them fit only for 'bad programmers'.[/color]

I don't see what the relation between intellisense and E&C is. You
clearly do not understand what debugging is all about, or for that matter,
what 'programming' stands for. Hint: not typing in code.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I tried to proof E&C is not a feature that's useful and besides some[/color]
> smalltalk/lisp interpreter[color=green]
>> fellow who didn't understand what the difference between an
>> interpreted language and a compiled language is, no-one could proof
>> I'm wrong.[/color]
>
> I presume you're talking about a previous thread in some discussion
> forum. Do you have a link?[/color]

see the blog link above
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I write a hell of a lot of lines of code per day, but I fire up
>> the debugger three or four times a day to test some mistery behaviour
>> I can't find back in my algorithm implementations or in my algorithms
>> itself. Look at it this way: if you write some code, and you run it,
>> and it misbehaves and you do not understand why when yuo SEE the
>> misbehaviour, you do not understand the code you've just written.[/color]
>
> Sorry, but your reply has displayed a quite disgusting degree of
> condescension and arrogance.[/color]

Hmm, having an opinion is being arrogant? Why? I can explain and
have explained it why E&C is bad debugging practise and should be avoided
and if a tool DOES make you avoid it (because it doesn't have the feature)
you as the developer will be a better software engineer in the end.
[color=blue]
> I am disapointed that you should feel the need to resort to this kind of
> stuff. You seem to have a hair-trigger superiority complex! ;-)[/color]

Well, from time to time I get a little tired of the people who
think they are professionals (I'm not talking about you personally) but
show a lack of knowledge about what software engineering is all about. And
instead of bashing these people that they're not what they think they are,
which is rude and counterproducti ve, it's better to educate them and show
them why they're wrong and how they can improve their skills and knowledge
and THUS their software they're making. About a decade ago, my mentor at
the uni spend extra time to enlighen me why the ideas I had about
designing / engineering software were not that good and also told me why.
I'll never forget that, and if I can open other people's eyes I won't stop
doing so. So, no, this is not about being arrogant. Yes I personally think
I'm very good at software engineering, but not the best. No wonder, since
I do it for a loooong time already. What's wrong with trying to teach some
knowledge I learned during the past 10 years?
[color=blue]
> Try and remember that in the end, the presence of E&C facility does no
> harm to the 'real programmers' such as yourself, who will at no point be
> required to lower themselves to making use of it.[/color]

Frank, even if MS was able to implement all the features in the
world into vs.net, I still would be writing these texts. It's not about a
silly feature I won't use and you will. It's about the philosophy behind
the REASON why you would use the feature and I won't.

FB

--
Solutions Design : http://www.sd.nl
My open source .NET Software : http://www.sd.nl/software
My .NET Blog : http://weblogs.asp.net/FBouma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ncaHammer]

Re: Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

"Frans Bouma" <perseus.news@x s4all.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns93CC8B6 4921Bperseusnew sxs4allnl@207.4 6.248.16...[color=blue]
> No, we're not. THere is no runtime information available when we're
> typing code-text.[/color]

i think, C# IDE does compile (or parse) while typing (intellisense most of
the times is correct)
AFAIK designer does parse the CreateComponent method
[color=blue]
> I don't see why. Edit&Continue is about altering code at runtime
> and immediately (well, after the recompile) see the effect of that
> altering. That's it.[/color]

Frank implies the case of a "newbie" that is in the process of using your
code, and does not understand how it behaves. Consider E&C as an online/live
documentation or as learning tool. Much better in many cases than any docs
you may have write
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
> >> software:
> >> http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx[/color][/color][/color]

In your article you forgot two other categories, i often encounter

1) Off-by-one errors most in drawing, coordinate calculation, but also the
relation of string.IndexOf and string.Substrin g (should i add 1, subtract 1
or leave it as is ?)
Those quests break my nerves, i wish i could write down a random expression
and while debugging write the correct one using the current context state

2) Heuristics-like (no algorithm exists, or trial and error *is* the
algorithm)
[color=blue]
> It's not about if we can live with or without having it, it's
> about:
> 1) There is a limited amount of time. Microsoft has stated in the
> VS.NET newsgroup friday that there was a choice: OR refactoring OR E&C in
> C#. They clearly made the choice for refactoring in C# and E&C in VB.NET[/color]

Good point, I prefer refactoring but i guess this is not the reason
I think that the first implementation of E&C will be lame, i doubt that it
can handle templates and or unsafe code. With those omissions only VB (lame
by nature) can have it<g>
[color=blue]
> 2) E&C encourages developers to use it as THE debugging tool for
> their software, while these developers should be encouraged to debug by
> reading their code and test the code against the algorithms they
> implemented. Look at the developers using E&C: are they reading their code
> and see with pre/post conditions if their code matches a PROVED algorithm?[/color]

What do you mean by "PROVED algorithm"
quick-sort ?
If not how do you prove an algorithm ?
ie STDDEV of Excel (and .net) uses a PROVED algorithm, but the result is in
many cases wrong
[color=blue]
> it's better to educate them and show
> them why they're wrong and how they can improve their skills and knowledge
> and THUS their software they're making.[/color]

this reminds me this :

http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/1177.html

Should i follow it too ?

[ncaHammer]

Re: Edit and continue is not useful (was: Re: What C# Needs)

"Frans Bouma" <perseus.news@x s4all.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns93CC8B6 4921Bperseusnew sxs4allnl@207.4 6.248.16...[color=blue]
> No, we're not. THere is no runtime information available when we're
> typing code-text.[/color]

i think, C# IDE does compile (or parse) while typing (intellisense most of
the times is correct)
AFAIK designer does parse the CreateComponent method
[color=blue]
> I don't see why. Edit&Continue is about altering code at runtime
> and immediately (well, after the recompile) see the effect of that
> altering. That's it.[/color]

Frank implies the case of a "newbie" that is in the process of using your
code, and does not understand how it behaves. Consider E&C as an online/live
documentation or as learning tool. Much better in many cases than any docs
you may have write
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Read my article about why E&C is bad practise and how to debug
> >> software:
> >> http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/posts/22211.aspx[/color][/color][/color]

In your article you forgot two other categories, i often encounter

1) Off-by-one errors most in drawing, coordinate calculation, but also the
relation of string.IndexOf and string.Substrin g (should i add 1, subtract 1
or leave it as is ?)
Those quests break my nerves, i wish i could write down a random expression
and while debugging write the correct one using the current context state

2) Heuristics-like (no algorithm exists, or trial and error *is* the
algorithm)
[color=blue]
> It's not about if we can live with or without having it, it's
> about:
> 1) There is a limited amount of time. Microsoft has stated in the
> VS.NET newsgroup friday that there was a choice: OR refactoring OR E&C in
> C#. They clearly made the choice for refactoring in C# and E&C in VB.NET[/color]

Good point, I prefer refactoring but i guess this is not the reason
I think that the first implementation of E&C will be lame, i doubt that it
can handle templates and or unsafe code. With those omissions only VB (lame
by nature) can have it<g>
[color=blue]
> 2) E&C encourages developers to use it as THE debugging tool for
> their software, while these developers should be encouraged to debug by
> reading their code and test the code against the algorithms they
> implemented. Look at the developers using E&C: are they reading their code
> and see with pre/post conditions if their code matches a PROVED algorithm?[/color]

What do you mean by "PROVED algorithm"
quick-sort ?
If not how do you prove an algorithm ?
ie STDDEV of Excel (and .net) uses a PROVED algorithm, but the result is in
many cases wrong
[color=blue]
> it's better to educate them and show
> them why they're wrong and how they can improve their skills and knowledge
> and THUS their software they're making.[/color]

this reminds me this :

http://lists.insecure.org/linux-kernel/2000/Sep/1177.html

Should i follow it too ?