Experiences with VxWorks compared to QNX

bridged with qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
Igor Kovalenko

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Igor Kovalenko » Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:00 am

It is pretty much as quick. Plus you get a backtrace of function calls
leading to crash.

"Mitchell Schoenbrun" <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.020215182856.1844A@schoenbrun.com...
Previously, Wojtek Lerch wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Most of the time, a debugger is also the quickest way to find out why
your code crashes.

Back in the not so distant past, I would record the address that
a program was crashing at, look up the location in the link map.
I guess doing it with a debugger is about as quick.


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com


Wojtek Lerch

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Wojtek Lerch » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:00 pm

Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@attbi.com> wrote:
It is pretty much as quick. Plus you get a backtrace of function calls
leading to crash.
Plus you can look at your variables, without having to add new printfs
and recompile and rerun every time it turns out that a variable that you
haven't thought of is relevant.

Plus, sometimes you can put a breakpoint somewhere a bit before the
crash, and single-step from there. Useful to find out *why* a pointer
became NULL and caused the crash...
"Mitchell Schoenbrun" <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.020215182856.1844A@schoenbrun.com...
Previously, Wojtek Lerch wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Most of the time, a debugger is also the quickest way to find out why
your code crashes.

Back in the not so distant past, I would record the address that
a program was crashing at, look up the location in the link map.
I guess doing it with a debugger is about as quick.


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com


--
Wojtek Lerch QNX Software Systems Ltd.

Wojtek Lerch

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Wojtek Lerch » Mon Feb 18, 2002 4:04 pm

Rennie Allen <rallen@csical.com> wrote:
Wojtek Lerch wrote:

Most of the time, a debugger is also the quickest way to find out why
your code crashes. But if my code *seems* to be doing the right thing,
I usually can think of better ways of making sure that it indeed is
correct than running it under a debugger...

Unless your code is safety critical control software, in which case you
must *know* that it *is* doing the right thing, regardless of what black
box testing implies that it is doing. That said, most of the software
that falls into this category can't be stepped through with a debugger
anyway...
A debugger is much more helpful in finding out what goes wrong in one
particular scenario, than in prooving that nothing can go wrong in any
possible scenario. In most cases, you simply don't have enough time to
run all the possible scenarios under the debugger...

--
Wojtek Lerch QNX Software Systems Ltd.

Mitchell Schoenbrun

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Mitchell Schoenbrun » Mon Feb 18, 2002 6:25 pm

Previously, Wojtek Lerch wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:
It is pretty much as quick. Plus you get a backtrace of function calls
leading to crash.

Plus you can look at your variables, without having to add new printfs
and recompile and rerun every time it turns out that a variable that you
haven't thought of is relevant.

Plus, sometimes you can put a breakpoint somewhere a bit before the
crash, and single-step from there. Useful to find out *why* a pointer
became NULL and caused the crash...
Well, these are all good points. My own personal experience is that
just knowing where the crash happens is usually enough. I spend my
mental energy looking at my code, rather than tracing how the problem
got there. This works pretty well. In past ages when I would create
more "exciting" debugging experiences, a debugger was more useful,
and even required.


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

Rennie Allen

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Rennie Allen » Mon Feb 18, 2002 7:21 pm

Wojtek Lerch wrote:

A debugger is much more helpful in finding out what goes wrong in one
particular scenario, than in prooving that nothing can go wrong in any
possible scenario. In most cases, you simply don't have enough time to
run all the possible scenarios under the debugger...
I agree. In most cases you don't have enough time to test all (or even
most) of the scenerios. That is why I said that "I try" to run the code
through in the debugger after initial implementation. The goal of
stepping through with the debugger, is exactly the same as a code
walkthrough, to validate that the implementation is reasonable, and that
it is doing (at least in the most common code paths) what the designer
intended (not to prove that the design is inviolate :-) In doing this I
have (on more than one occasion - although not frequently) found that
externally, the code appeared to be behaving as designed, but when
stepping through with the debugger, it could be clearly seen that
undesirable side-effects were taking place.

Dmitri

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Dmitri » Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:43 am

I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years since I turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to liking MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.
BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?

Werner Schweizer

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Werner Schweizer » Fri Mar 15, 2002 8:42 am

Links to that subject:
http://www.qnx.com/testdrive/QNXIDEdatasheet.pdf
http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse_ ... v0214.html

Werner Schweizer

"Dmitri" <ivdal@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a6s8c8$ktd$1@inn.qnx.com...
I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years since I
turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to liking
MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.

BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?


Mario Charest

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Mario Charest » Fri Mar 15, 2002 5:57 pm

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C923A9F.1DD2A7F1@web_.de...

Werner Schweizer wrote:

Links to that subject:
http://www.qnx.com/testdrive/QNXIDEdatasheet.pdf

Reading this data sheet ... I wonder if this IDE is using native Photon
by JNI or is it
using an AWT API based on Photon ... or X11 ??
The IDE is written in JAVA.
Armin


http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse_ ... v0214.html

Werner Schweizer

"Dmitri" <ivdal@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a6s8c8$ktd$1@inn.qnx.com...

I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years since I
turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to
liking
MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.

BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?


Armin Steinhoff

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Armin Steinhoff » Fri Mar 15, 2002 6:17 pm

Werner Schweizer wrote:
Reading this data sheet ... I wonder if this IDE is using native Photon
by JNI or is it
using an AWT API based on Photon ... or X11 ??

Armin

http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse_ ... v0214.html

Werner Schweizer

"Dmitri" <ivdal@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a6s8c8$ktd$1@inn.qnx.com...

I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years since I
turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to liking
MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.

BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?


Kris Warkentin

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Kris Warkentin » Fri Mar 15, 2002 6:27 pm

Actually, Eclipse uses IBM's widget toolkit SWT. This is an attempt at a
one to one mapping of java calls to gui calls, based on the premise that
most gui's provide similar functionality (ie scrollbars, buttons, etc.).
There's some interesting whitepapers on the eclipse.org site but the gist of
it is that you're using native widgets that are called by java which gives
some nice performance benefits as well as having a look and feel closer to
that of the host system. (and themes work too)

cheers,

Kris
"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C923A9F.1DD2A7F1@web_.de...

Werner Schweizer wrote:

Links to that subject:
http://www.qnx.com/testdrive/QNXIDEdatasheet.pdf

Reading this data sheet ... I wonder if this IDE is using native Photon
by JNI or is it
using an AWT API based on Photon ... or X11 ??

Armin


http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse_ ... v0214.html

Werner Schweizer

"Dmitri" <ivdal@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a6s8c8$ktd$1@inn.qnx.com...

I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years since I
turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to
liking
MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.

BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?


Kris Warkentin

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Kris Warkentin » Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:20 pm

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C924A3D.D85242D7@web_.de...

Kris Warkentin wrote:

Actually, Eclipse uses IBM's widget toolkit SWT. This is an attempt at
a
one to one mapping of java calls to gui calls, based on the premise that
most gui's provide similar functionality (ie scrollbars, buttons, etc.).
There's some interesting whitepapers on the eclipse.org site but the
gist of
it is that you're using native widgets that are called by java

using JNI ?
Yes.
which gives
some nice performance benefits as well as having a look and feel closer
to
that of the host system. (and themes work too)

Interesting ... so it isn't a threat against Photon :). Or ?

Armin


cheers,

Kris

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C923A9F.1DD2A7F1@web_.de...


Werner Schweizer wrote:

Links to that subject:
http://www.qnx.com/testdrive/QNXIDEdatasheet.pdf

Reading this data sheet ... I wonder if this IDE is using native
Photon
by JNI or is it
using an AWT API based on Photon ... or X11 ??

Armin


http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse_ ... v0214.html

Werner Schweizer

"Dmitri" <ivdal@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a6s8c8$ktd$1@inn.qnx.com...

I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years
since I
turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to
liking
MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.

BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?


Armin Steinhoff

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Armin Steinhoff » Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:23 pm

Kris Warkentin wrote:
Actually, Eclipse uses IBM's widget toolkit SWT. This is an attempt at a
one to one mapping of java calls to gui calls, based on the premise that
most gui's provide similar functionality (ie scrollbars, buttons, etc.).
There's some interesting whitepapers on the eclipse.org site but the gist of
it is that you're using native widgets that are called by java
using JNI ?
which gives
some nice performance benefits as well as having a look and feel closer to
that of the host system. (and themes work too)
Interesting ... so it isn't a threat against Photon :). Or ?

Armin
cheers,

Kris

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C923A9F.1DD2A7F1@web_.de...


Werner Schweizer wrote:

Links to that subject:
http://www.qnx.com/testdrive/QNXIDEdatasheet.pdf

Reading this data sheet ... I wonder if this IDE is using native Photon
by JNI or is it
using an AWT API based on Photon ... or X11 ??

Armin


http://www.eclipse.org/
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/eclipse_ ... v0214.html

Werner Schweizer

"Dmitri" <ivdal@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a6s8c8$ktd$1@inn.qnx.com...

I have to disagree on this point, and it's a fair few years since I
turned
out of university. A good IDE, and begrudgingly I must admit to
liking
MS
Visual Studio, can save much development time.

BTW, there's rumours about new IDE for QNX6 from QSSL.
Does anybody knows when it's available?


Igor Kovalenko

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Igor Kovalenko » Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:48 am

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C924A3D.D85242D7@web_.de...

....
Interesting ... so it isn't a threat against Photon :). Or ?
It might be a threat to Photon native API but not for Photon itself since
the engine and widget library are provided by Photon. Still, some
applications might prefer to use native Photon API because of performance
and memory consumption considerations. SWT feels much faster than Swing and
actually it is fast enough to feel comfortable on desktop but still it is
not quite as fast as C. Java takes its toll in both CPU and memory usage.

-- igor

Armin Steinhoff

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Armin Steinhoff » Sat Mar 16, 2002 1:48 pm

Igor Kovalenko wrote:
"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C924A3D.D85242D7@web_.de...


...
Interesting ... so it isn't a threat against Photon :). Or ?


It might be a threat to Photon native API but not for Photon itself since
the engine and widget library are provided by Photon.
Oh, what a nice statement .. especially from you :)

OK, then tell me why e.g. wxWindows and Qt could be a thread to Photon
when SWT is acceptable ??

Would be nice if the SWT/Photon interface could also be used for other
languages like Phython. (Jython should work with it ..)

Is the SWT implementation freely available for XFree86 ??
Still, some
applications might prefer to use native Photon API because of performance
and memory consumption considerations.
BTW, wxWindows and Qt are C++ based ... so there are no performance
problems.
SWT feels much faster than Swing and
actually it is fast enough to feel comfortable on desktop but still it is
not quite as fast as C.
Is SWT in any way compatible to SWING ??

Cheers

Armin

Igor Kovalenko

Re: Tool Chain

Post by Igor Kovalenko » Sat Mar 16, 2002 7:23 pm

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C934D39.6F12F128@web_.de...

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

"Armin Steinhoff" <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3C924A3D.D85242D7@web_.de...


...
Interesting ... so it isn't a threat against Photon :). Or ?


It might be a threat to Photon native API but not for Photon itself
since
the engine and widget library are provided by Photon.

Oh, what a nice statement .. especially from you :)

OK, then tell me why e.g. wxWindows and Qt could be a thread to Photon
when SWT is acceptable ??
SWT maps Java classes into Photon widgets. Qt (last time I checked) has
hardware abstraction layer with their own drawing primitives. That means
they have their own widgets and map only low level drawing primitives. The
result is okay wrt speed, but it looks 'alien' in the environment. And it
would not provide integration with other applications, like drag and drop
(not without additional work). What you get is essentialy another
environment, which only shares graphics drivers and Photon engine, just like
Xphoton.

I don't know what is situation with wxWindows, did not look into their
code.
Would be nice if the SWT/Photon interface could also be used for other
languages like Phython. (Jython should work with it ..)

Is the SWT implementation freely available for XFree86 ??
Not sure, but I'd think so.
Still, some
applications might prefer to use native Photon API because of
performance
and memory consumption considerations.

BTW, wxWindows and Qt are C++ based ... so there are no performance
problems.
I've read Qt code.
SWT feels much faster than Swing and
actually it is fast enough to feel comfortable on desktop but still it
is
not quite as fast as C.

Is SWT in any way compatible to SWING ??
Compatible? What that would mean? There is no integration between them,
AFAIK. Swing is bigger and more generalized system.

- igor

Post Reply

Return to “qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy”