Miles Thompson wrote:
> > Suggestions will be most welcome. Also, I'm not married to this, so if
> > anyone thinks there is a better debugger, please jump in.

The following ***umes object-oriented programming paradigms are at least
somewhat applied. I would guess functional would be similar, but procedural
code, you might be on your own there...

I actually use two cl***es that I include at the bottom of all of my library
definitions (in if(!cl***_exists()){declare}format). One provides warning
and error message storage, the other type ***ertion. Between the two of
these, I have simple unit testing that I can perform as I am developing a
cl***, as well as pre-included simple error logging that, when I install
into the greater system, can be incorporated into the systemic error
catching routines without refactoring code, in most cases to weld-on
systemic error routines.

Thinking aloud, getting code to work correctly usually means testing it
against what you expect it to do, so doing that at a very localized level
first can be helpful. Once I started doing this, my implementation issues
somewhat went away. Results (and implementations) may very.

> > PS Why are we doing this? Because we are getting tired of debugging
> > with Javascript alert() boxes. /mt

Firebug in Firefox is a very well-developed javascript debugger, featuring
console.log(), which allows you to stop using alert() for error checking.
Very nice! And I put this:

<code>
// Solve the firebug extension issue in IE by try/catching and creating a
blank object console.log();
try{console.log();}catch(e){var console=new
Object;console={log:function(){var k=0;}};};
</code>

At the head of each js file to prevent errors in IE or other browsers
without Firebug installed.

Example: http://web3.unt.edu/riskman/JS/lem.json.js

--
Jared Farrish
Intermediate Web Developer
Denton, Tx

Abraham Maslow: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see
every problem as a nail." $$