use Perl

• debugging and maintaining (Score:2)

  by merlyn (47)

  When you consider that a "compiler" is just a "code generator" for machine language, all the same rules apply.

  When we first got compilers, people complained that they couldn't debug, because the debuggers showed only the translated version. And there were times when the compilers generated sub-optimal code, and there was no way to tune or fix the output without breaking the paradigm.

  But now, high-level languages are commonplace. High-level debuggers are commonplace. The resulting machine code is opti

  --
  

  • Randal L. Schwartz
  • Stonehenge
  • Re:debugging and maintaining (Score:2)

    by ziggy (25) on 2002.11.04 16:17 (#14462) Journal

    When you consider that a "compiler" is just a "code generator" for machine language, all the same rules apply.

    When we first got compilers, people complained that they couldn't debug, because the debuggers showed only the translated version. And there were times when the compilers generated sub-optimal code, and there was no way to tune or fix the output without breaking the paradigm.

    I don't think it's the same thing here. In an abstract sense, it is all about the maturity of the tools. But in a practical sense, the real issue is about over-abstracting a problem to produce a solution. That is, who is to blame when something goes wrong? The immature tool, or the programmer who crafted the inappropriate solution?

    I'll buy that there comes a time when the tools are inadequate and immature. But to reduce the argument to say that in the end the tools are always inadequate doesn't fly.

    For a good meta-code generator, you'll need to get to the point where you have good debugging hooks, trusted code, and optimal code. Prior to that, it'll be a maintenance nightmare.

    With or without mature meta-code tools, the simplest meta-code to write is the meta-code that you don't have to write in the first place. Same as other code. ;-)

    Reply to This

    Parent