RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

["Tom Spilman" <tom@...>]

> Btw, LuaPlus already sports this approach, but the client is 
> bound to be 
> VisualC++/Windows based.

  I looked at LuaPlus, but it's a modified version of Lua and the client is
build with MFC.  I just didn't see any advantages for me to use it short of
the debugger.

  The debugger client I'm working on is written with WxWindows, so
technically it should be rather portable if need be.

> Could you use luaSocket for the communication?  Many/most 
> gadgets actually using Lua might be having TCP/IP connection 
> as well, at least for the debugging phase.

  I'm actually using Lua-RPC ( http://www.q12.org/lua/ ).

  Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br 
> [mailto:lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br] On Behalf Of Asko Kauppi
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:00 AM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> 
> 
> For me, this seems like the right approach (having separate 
> host & client).  Embedded world will love it, no doubt. :)  
> Btw, LuaPlus already sports this approach, but the client is 
> bound to be 
> VisualC++/Windows based.
> 
> Could you use luaSocket for the communication?  Many/most 
> gadgets actually using Lua might be having TCP/IP connection 
> as well, at least for the debugging phase.
> 
> What we need is a standard here. :)
> -ak
> 
> 
> 14.6.2004 kello 18:31, Tom Spilman kirjoitti:
> 
> >  I've been working on a Lua debugger on and off and have 
> been thinking 
> > about issue.  The debugger GUI itself uses Lua-RPC to 
> communicate with 
> > the target lua code so it can be anywhere.  The question for me was 
> > how to get the RPC server running in the debugging target.
> >
> >  I'm thinking of providing multiple options by supplying 
> code that can 
> > be linked in, pre-compiled C libraries, and a dynamic C 
> library that 
> > can be connected via LoadLib.  I suspect that one of these three 
> > methods would work for just about any situation.
> >
> >   Tom
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br
> >> [mailto:lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br] On Behalf Of 
> Paul Smith
> >> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:57 AM
> >> To: Lua list
> >> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> >>
> >> At 22:17 13/06/2004, Asko Kauppi wrote:
> >>
> >>> Having proper debugger support (not only API, but a 
> _real_ debugger) 
> >>> would have gained +10 points.
> >>>
> >>> Imho, this is currently a very high priority lack for Lua 
> newcomers.
> >>> People just are used to proper tools, and -face it- when was
> >> the last
> >>> time you wrote print('something') in a script just to see..?  ;)
> >>
> >> Erm, I use 'print' (or equivalent) in my Perl, PHP and Lua 
> programs. 
> >> Having a 'real debugger' is all well and good, but you've 
> got to get 
> >> it into the same environment as your real script is used.
> >>
> >> So, in Perl, PHP, most of the time I use these in web 
> pages, so I'd 
> >> somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger and not fall over 
> >> whilst I'm stepping through the code..
> >>
> >> With Lua, I'd have to, probably, compile the debugger into my 
> >> application and have a GUI for it to step through code.
> >>
> >> A 'real debugger' is fine for a standalone script, but much less 
> >> usable for a script called from within another program, be 
> it Apache 
> >> (and
> >> mod_perl/mod_php) or my application calling Lua.
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul				VPOP3 - Internet Email 
> Server/Gateway
> >> support@pscs.co.uk			http://www.pscs.co.uk/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
>