lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [BK PATCH] USB changes for 2.5.34
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>
> > From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
> > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 07:10:00 +0200
>
> >[...]
> > Let's try a different show of hands: How many users would be happier if
> > they knew that kernel developers are using modern techniques to improve
> > the quality of the kernel?
>
> I do not see how using a debugger improves a quality of the kernel.
> Good thinking and coding does improve kernel quality. Debugger
> certainly does not help if someone cannot code.
>
> A debugger can do some good things. Some people argue that it
> improves productivity, which I think may be true under some
> circomstances. If your build system sucks and/or slow, and
> if you work with a binary only software, debugger helps.
> If you work with something like Linux, and compile on something
> better than a 333MHz x86, it probably does not help your
> productivity. This is all wonderful, but has nothing to do
> with the code quality.

Uh, I feel obliged to respond to these statements just in case
anyone thinks they contain anything which is correct.

I have spent twelve months doing kernel development without kgdb and
eighteen months with. "With" is better.

> And to think that your users would be happier with a crap produced
> by a debugger touting Windows graduate than with a quality code
> debugged with observation simply defies any reason.
>

uh-huh.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans