Skip to main content

Question for the VFP team: Why can't the debugger get the code?

There are many reasons why the debugger can't always get the code but as a developer, one always wants to ask.
 
I have several apps. I turn on "Include Debugger code" in the project manager. When an error occurs, why can't the debugger find the information?
 
Yes. The debugger can read the Class code and shows it. but PRG files (where many developers keep their code) are kept hidden from this area.
 
There may be ways around it but WHY can't VFP read the "include debugging" code from program files?
 

Comments

Anonymous said…
Do you have sample code to reproduce your scenario?
Are you running an EXE? Are you DOing an APP or EXE from the command window?
Repro code shows unambiguously what you mean.
March 23, 2005 at 11:57 PM
Andrew MacNeill said…
Typically this happens when you have your source in one directory where you build your project and then you are running it in another directory and then trying to debug it.

Simplest steps to reproduce:

Build a project:
MAIN.PRG
DO FORM X

Function WhatsmyName
IF SYS(0)="andrew"
RETURN "Good"
ELSE

RETURN "Bad"
ENDIF

The form has a button on it that does
MESSAGEBOX(WhatsMyName())

Now build this as an EXE or an APP.

If you run it in your Dev environment and use the debugger, you can see all of the code.

Copy the app to another folder, restart VFP and then try again using the debugger with a Breakpoint on PROGRAM(). The code in the BUTTON click will show but the code in MAIN.PRG will be "Source Not Available"

Make sense?
March 24, 2005 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said…
Thanks so very much for taking your time to create your blog. Excellent work
November 23, 2005 at 9:05 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....
Post a Comment
Read more