ruby-x/ruby-x.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

typos mainly

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Torsten Ruger 2015-08-03 21:00:18 +03:00
parent a66821d03e
commit b2419e0bc2
1 changed files with 10 additions and 9 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

19
_posts/2015-07-25-i-like-not-playing-computer.md
View File

@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ author: Torsten
---
It really is like [Bret Victor](http://worrydream.com/#!/InventingOnPrinciple) says in his video:
nowadays good programmers are the ones who play computer in their head well.
good programmers are the ones who play computer in their head well.
Why? Because you have to to program nowadays. And off course that's what i'm doing.
Why? Because you have to, to program. And off course that's what i'm doing.
But when it got to debugging, it got a bit much. Using gdb for non C code, i mean it's bad enough
for c code.
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ for c code.
The process of getting my "hello world" to work was quite hairy, what with debugging with gdb
and checking registers and stuff. Brr.
The "solution", my own debugger, possibly graphical, came quite quickly. But the effort seemed a
The idea for a "solution", my own debugger, possibly graphical, came quite quickly. But the effort seemed a
little big. It took a little, but then i started.
I fiddled a little with fancy 2 or even 3d representations but couldn't get things to work.
@ -37,21 +37,22 @@ program runs through.
Off course to have a debugger i needed to start on an interpreter.
Now it wasn't just the technical challenge, but some resistance against interpreting, since the whole
idea of salama was to compile. But in the end it is a very different level that the interpreter
works at. I chose to put it at the register level (no the arm), so it would be useful for future
works at. I chose to put it at the register level (not the arm), so it would be useful for future
cpu's, and because the register to arm mapping is mainly about naming, not functionality. Ie it is
pretty much one to one.
But off course (he says after the fact), the interpreter solves a large part of the testing
issue. Because i wan't really happy with tests, and that was because i didn't have a good
issue. Because i wasn't really happy with tests, and that was because i didn't have a good
idea how to test. Sure unit tests, fine. But to write all the little unit tests and hope the
total will result in what you want never struck me as a good plan.
Instead i tend to write system tests, and drop down to unit tests to find the bugs in system tests.
But i had no good system tests, other than running the executable. But **now i do**. Or rather
i will have once the Interpreter is finished. I can just run the Interpreter on a program and
But i had no good system tests, other than running the executable. But **now i do**.
I can just run the Interpreter on a program and
see if it produced the right output. And by right output i really just mean stdout.
So two flies with one (oh i don't know how this goes, im'm not english), better test, and visual
So two flies with one (oh i don't know how this goes, i'm not english), better test, and visual
feedback, both driving the process at double speed.
Now i "just" need a good way to visualize a static and running program.
Now i "just" need a good way to visualize a static and running program. (implement breakpoints,
build a class and object inpector, recompile on edit . . .)