Re: GDB interface: MI versus API or ??

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>]

Keith Seitz wrote:
> Rick Moseley wrote:
>>> To me those responses pretty much indicated that the CDT developers do
>>> not see MI as a limiter.
>>>   
>> My thoughts exactly.
>
> Is that really true, though? Do they have any other choice but gdb/MI?
>
> The responses sound more like they welcome a "better"/enhanced 
> debugger backend (who wouldn't), but they've got a good, mature 
> product and plenty of other work to do, too. So MI is "good enough".
>
> We shouldn't confuse "good" with "good enough". But perhaps the cynic 
> is me needs to be beaten into submission again.

That's my read too. Just because they have MI and it works, does it mean 
that it could be improved on? Bettered? But unless we come up with a 
better way, then automatically we're just quoting optimistic theory over 
actual implementation.  To be honest, I think eventually whatever we 
come up with, if it is not improving GDB, we'll end up at last emulating 
an MI interface. Just because everything uses it already.

Regards

Phil