[Python-Dev] pdb: should next command be extended?

Bob Ippolito bob at redivi.com
Fri Aug 12 03:18:30 CEST 2005

On Aug 11, 2005, at 3:02 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:

> On Monday 08 August 2005 20:13, Ilya Sandler wrote:
>>> At OSCON, Anthony Baxter made the point that pdb is currently one  
>>> of the
>>> more unPythonic modules.
>> What is unpythonic about pdb? Is this part of Anthony's presentation
>> online? (Google found a summary and slides from presentation but they
>> don't say anything about pdb's deficiencies)
> It was a lightning talk, I'll put the slides up somewhere at some  
> point.
> My experience with pdb is that it's more or less impossible to  
> extend or
> subclass it in any way, and the code is pretty nasty. In addition,  
> pretty
> much everyone I asked "which modules in the std lib need to be  
> seriously
> fixed" listed pdb first (and sometimes first, second and third).

One thing PDB needs is a mode that runs as a background thread and  
opens up a socket so that another Python process can talk to it, for  
embedded/remote/GUI debugging.  This is what IDLE, Wing, and WinPDB  
(haven't tried it yet <http://www.digitalpeers.com/pythondebugger/ 
index.html>) do.

Unfortunately, most of the other Python IDE's run interpreters and  
debuggers in-process, so it makes them unsuitable for developing GUI  
and embedded apps and opens you up for crashing the IDE as well as  
whatever code you're trying to fix.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list