I haven't used oqamldebug - perhaps it should be more widely publicized? Perhaps linked to from the ocamldebug doc?

That said, println is my tool of choice, although I hear good things about printf :)

I think that, because of lack of resources, we probably have to accept that, as far as debuggers and IDEs are concerned, we are going to be stuck where we are for the forseeable future (emacs+speedbar in my case).

Recently I have been programming in scala. It is an interesting language. I wouldn't say it is better than OCaml, but the tooling and IDE support is much better (and the libraries... wow!), and as a consequence the programming experience is more enjoyable (for me personally, YMMV). Not having to write a make file is already a big win. 

On 26 November 2015 at 09:14, Leonardo Laguna Ruiz <modlfo@gmail.com> wrote:

I use oqamldebug. In general works very well.

Ocamldebug is good but I agree that the UI needs improvements. When I was programming F# I practically never used print debugging since the debugger was very accessible and installing custom printers for your data structures was trivial.

Leonardo

On 2015-11-25 16:55, Daniel Bünzli wrote:

Le mercredi, 25 novembre 2015 à 12:49, John Whitington a écrit :

If not a debugger, why not?

For UI reasons.

When I was doing ios work you could just set a break point in the ide by clicking in the margin, hit the run button and you'd simply stop there and be able to inspect the state of your program. It was quick and easy so I would use it — note however that sometimes it was easier to get exactly what you wanted through a printf statement.

Lacking such a trivial setup, printf is quicker.

Best,

Daniel

--
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs