[John Andersen]

On 4 Jan 2010 16:47:30 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

John Andersen wrote:

Of course it's good to learn how things work.
But you seem to be the one who said a debugger is a required tool for
every pc user, or something similar.

No, I said that if you were running a studio or any business based on
a technology, you need to know how to use the tools required to diagnose
problems with that technology. In the case of a studio built around a
tape machine, that means knowing how to use a scope and a signal generator
and knowing how to trace signal flow even if you may not have a schematic.

Of course. You can fix a tape machine with some basic hand tools and a
service manual.
You are not going to get the source code to the programs you typically
run on a computer unless they happen to be open source in the first
place.

In the case of a studio based around a computer system, that means having
a debugger or at least a crude tracing tool, and be able to watch basic
control flow through a program even if you may not have source code.

Ludicrous at best.

1. Loading an executable file into a debugger gives extrememly limited
information.
2. Unless the executable file was compiled with debugging info, which
is unlikely except maybe for beta code, you will get even less
information.




Sorry, I've been debugging systems without source code and without
schematics for many years.

Good for you.
To make a statement that this is a required skill or that a debugger
should be a part of every computer user's arsenal is idiotic.

It's no fun, but it's part of the job.

Debugging programs is not part of the job for 99.999999999 percent of
computer users out there. Programmers aside of course.

Source code and schematics make it much easier, and great documentation
the describes internals (like Bob Orban's) is even better. But sometimes
you have to do what you have to do.
--scott

You won't even get to square one using a debugger on an exe file from
a program like protools.
And that's assuming the files aren't encrypted, which most of them
are.
Sorry but your POV WRT to software is not even close to reality.
With respect to hardware, I agree with you because at least you can
see what is front of you and while not having a schematic is a major
problem, it's not impossible to still trouble shoot.

With a compiled executable program, like Cubase.exe, Sonar.exe and no
source code the debugger is 99.99 percent useless.
And that's not even counting all the dll's the program is loading.



--
John Andersen
I'd rather be surfin!
1/4/2010 4:53:54 PM