Xref: utzoo comp.lang.eiffel:1437 comp.lang.objective-c:185
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox
From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.objective-c
Subject: Re: Whose debugger is better, Eiffel or Objective C?
Message-ID: <6501@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 91 13:37:38 GMT
References: <1991Feb26.045704.11186@ecst.csuchico.edu> <1991Feb26.155726.9531@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 25

In article <1991Feb26.155726.9531@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> giacomet@haley.ecn.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) writes:
>all my debuging is done with assertion monitoring. Sometimes, I've
>used the trace capability but that's it. I'd believe the assertion
>by Eiffel's authors that traditional debuggers are somehow obsolete
>in Eiffel to be relevant, if not true. I must also say that, unlike 
>my experience with Objective-C or C, the debugging stage with Eiffel
>has been much limited.

Why not use C or Objective-C's assertion monitoring? Simply
#include "assert.h" and have at it.
{
	assert(precondition);
	...body...
	assert(postcondition);
}
Class invarients are, IMO, best expressed in a separate file, distinct
from the class under test. I call these separate files "gauges" by 
analogy with inspection gauges of tangible domains like manufacturing.

For more on this, see "Planning the Software Industrial Revolution";
IEEE Software; November 1990.
-- 

Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875
The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482