Subj : Re: Not debugging?
To   : comp.programming,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.lisp
From : Duane Bozarth
Date : Thu Aug 25 2005 11:58 am

Phlip wrote:
> 
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> 
> >> The define "legacy" as "requires debugging".
> >
> > That's a bizarre (at best) definition of "legacy"...
> 
> That's why Greg didn't understand why I used it like that.

I didn't either (and still don't) because it has nothing whatsoever to
to w/ "legacy" or not...

> Me: Strive to never debug.
> 
> Greg: What about blah blah blah.
> 
> Me: You are using something that you can't design
>         fresh from scratch to resist bugs. So you must
>         run the debugger more often than greenfield code
> 
> Greg: It's not "legacy" it's embedded blah blah blah

In that sense everything is "legacy" -- I can't redesign a commercial
compiler, either.

....

> Just don't leave the emulator out of the loop. Greg implied using it would
> slow down the tail end of development.

At some point in most embedded systems, that <is> true...you get to a
point at which the depth of emulation required isn't worth the effort
that would be required.  Once at that point, reverting is rarely
productive use of resources.

.