Hi Christoph,
On 06-Jan-24 9:51:56 PM, christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
Hi Jaromir, On 2024-01-04T15:14:55+00:00, mail@jaromir.net wrote:
Hi Christoph, thanks again for your help!
On 04-Jan-24 1:59:00 AM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
[...]
But as you say, snapshots can be helpful in certain situations ... fascinating how a limitation can evolve as a feature ...
(By the way, there is also a preference called "Replace inspectors
with
explorers in TraceDebugger". But it does not really look nice,
that's
why its labeled as experimental.)
Cool! For this to look more reasonably you could hide the "value"
areas
that display the Inspector's values... (screenshot). The debugging is
so
much more dynamic this way :)
Interesting! But two issues are remaining (at least for me):
(1) You cannot fully read longer values. In inspectors, we have linebreaks and vertical scrolling and the value can use up 60% of the inspector's space. In explorers, we could only allow horizontal scrolling, which is less convenient.
True
(2) Where do you evaluate custom do-its in the debugger? I do this all the time. I guess you could you the main contents pane for this, but then it will always be styled badly, and you cannot see your do-its and longer methods at the same time ...
Hmm, main pane usually... but I personally spend more time staring at things than doing them ;)
Thanks again, Jaromir
Understood, thanks. I have noticed, however, that your stepping
methods like stepOver, stepInto and stepThrough are sometimes substantially simpler than their traditional counterparts. How come?
Is
there some tradeoff or have you truly refactored and simplified the traditional ones? (Which are very opaque and really hard to truly understand)
I would say it's a mixture of both - refactoring and a different
model.
I put some effort in separating model (TDBCursor) and view (TraceDebugger) from each other better than the Debugger does (so TDBCursor is also usable by itself as a scriptable time-travel debugger). The stepping logic in the normal Debugger is also a bit scattered in Debugger, Process, and Context. Some things are not required in the TraceDebugger, such as the need for the ingenious #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: because all contexts during tracing must
be
simulated.
Ahh, true... is this the source of the performance limitation? I
tried
to debug some stepOver execution in the Trace debugger and sometimes
a
step takes a minute or two.
Exactly! If we run certain methods outside of the simulator, we might miss not only parts of the context tree but also changes to variables which I would find even more annoying. Still, I'm aware that this is probably the main limitation of the TraceDebugger, so there is already an open issue for that: https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger/issues/106 In a nutshell, users could opt in to skipping certain methods/classes/packages that they consider not relevant for the current debugging session to improve performance (or even make trace debugging of larger programs feasible at all). But this is hard: SimulationStudio must use something like #runUntilErrorOrReturnFrom: to step over irrelevant message sends but reenable the simulation for *every* control flow that exists the context - including exceptions that are eventually resumed and return back into the method stepped over. Same for methods that are activated from within the skipped code that should not be ignored - this would only be possible using breakpoints aka method wrappers. Plus the aforementioned issue of missing state changes. I have been thinking about these issues for a couple of months and my preliminary conclusion is that these requirements go beyond what can be achieved with code simulation. I see greater potential in migrating all the tracing logic away from simulation to method wrappers + bytecode instrumentation, as they have a significantly smaller execution overhead and could be enabled/disabled per method. But that will be a major rewrite ...
Some things also cannot work like in the normal Debugger due to the possibility of stepping backwards, such as the updates to the window label in case of an unhandled error: Normal Debugger uses a Notification for this (see #handleLabelUpdatesIn:whenExecuting:),
which
only works one-way, whereas the TraceDebugger uses a more functional approach to detect whether the exception handler is still on the
stack
(see TraceDebugger>>#labelString). Oops, this seems to be broken in
the
trunk: the "ZeroDivide:" should actually disappear again once after some steps ...
Thanks again!
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk
On 2024-01-04T00:03:13+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Thanks a lot for your explanations - very helpful!
a few more notes inlined:
On 02-Jan-24 7:53:31 PM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
wrote:
Hi Jaromir,
thanks again for your messages, please keep them coming! And
squeak-dev
is totally the right place for them IMO. :-)
Regarding the openPath bug: Thanks for the pointer, I have
uploaded
Collections-ct.1061 to the inbox which would fix it. However, it
is
a
bit surprising that PluggableTreeItemNode>>#asString (and also Context>>#printString by the way) answers texts not strings, so
maybe
this needs further discussion.
Or when you open an inspector on a context the context's
state
gets
frozen in time and won't change when you proceed debugging -
another
groundbreaking change!
Yes, these "snapshot inspectors" (or also "snapshot explorers")
have
their pros and cons. As a con, I often found it inconvenient
that I
cannot watch the changing state of certain objects in extra
windows
as
I am stepping through a TraceDebugger. But always updating these inspectors depending on the current time of the TraceDebugger
might
be
confusing as well because there is no clear visual connection
...
It's
an unsolved UX problem for me.
It depends: sometimes I like to see the states changing in an
inspector
and sometimes I desperately want to compare past and present
states.
It
almost sounds like a preference :) Btw. I usually use the
Explorer
instead of Inspector but what annoys me is the Explorer (unlike
the
Inspector) doesn't update the states automatically: I have to
refresh
manually (switch to Inspector and back or collapse the hierarchy
and
open again - is there possibly something to make the Explorer
update
automatically? Thanks!)
But I'm glad they work well for you. :-) If you have any better
ideas,
let me know!
Regarding your questions about the behavior of code when being
run
in
the TraceDebugger:
If I turn off the preference "Show call tree in
TraceDebugger" am
I
right to expect the Trace debugger behavior would be equivalent
to
the
traditional one?
Yes and no. :-) First, the representation of the traced program
in
the
TraceDebugger (stack vs tree) does not influence the execution semantics of the program. It's just that in rare situations with irregular context switches, the tree model is currently unable
to
locate certain contexts at certain points in time. That's why
these
contexts are skipped as you step through a program in the
TraceDebugger
with the context tree activated.
Second, code that is simulated inside the TraceDebugger is (or
should)
behave exactly as the same code being run in a normal simulator
(like
when you step through an expression or use Context class>>#runSimulated:). There are however two exceptions to this invariant:
(1) Bugs in the simulation engine: We (that's an including we!)
have
been working on fixing these bugs so that all code can behave
exactly
then same when being simulated. Still, there are some open known
(and
likely further unknown) issues (e.g., you cannot simulate a
simulator
which is executing a failed primitive:
ContextrunSimulated:[ContextrunSimulated:[#()tryPrimitive:60withArgs:#(0)]]),
so this delightful quest is still going on. :-)
(2) Context primitives 195-197 (#findNextUnwindContextUpTo:, #terminateTo:, #findNextHandlerContextStarting) always fail when
the
context is executed in SimulationStudio (which also includes the TraceDebugger): This is due to the nature of SimulationStudio,
which
subclasses from Context (see SimulationContext) to make parts of
the
simulated code execution customizable. The VM, however, is not
prepared
to the existence of such subclass objects of Context and will
always
fail when these primitives are invoked on an object that is not
exactly
of the class Context, so the methods execute their fallback code instead. So this is a visible difference in the execution
semantics
between normal VM and SimulationStudio/TraceDebugger.
Understood, thanks. I have noticed, however, that your stepping
methods
like stepOver, stepInto and stepThrough are sometimes
substantially
simpler than their traditional counterparts. How come? Is there
some
tradeoff or have you truly refactored and simplified the
traditional
ones? (Which are very opaque and really hard to truly understand)
However, now you might say: This makes sense when I evaluate Simulatordebug:[thisContextfindNextHandlerContextStarting]
because
when
I inspect thisContext in that debugger, it shows a subclass of
Context;
but when I do
[thisContextfindNextHandlerContextStarting]debugTrace,
thisContext actually is an instance of Context itself, so how
can
the
VM detect this? And you would be right, because when you
*inspect* a
context in the TraceDebugger, it is a Context instance indeed,
but
not
when you actually *execute* it in the TraceDebugger, as you can
see
when you evaluate [thisContextclass]debugTrace ... The
explanation
for
that lies in TDBTrace>>#enableSimulatorDuring:, but to cut it
short,
we
convert all (non-dead) Context instances from the
TraceDebugger's
tree
to a subclass of SimulationContext temporarily during each step
to
achieve two things: First, to not confuse observant users like
you
with
the existence of these subclasses (well, maybe that did not work
too
well), and second, to make it possible to resume from a trace
debugger
at any point, which will execute the process in the regular VM;
and
as
noted before, the VM can only handle Context instances, so it
would
fail when scheduling the process otherwise (you can actually
observe
that when trying to proceed from Simulatordebug:[thisContextfindNextHandlerContextStarting]).
(Fun
fact:
Not all VMs handle Context subinstances that carefully: SqueakJS
will
seriously mix up the context/object layout, while TruffleSqueak
will
terminate as soon as you instantiate (!) any subinstance of
Context,
so
I'm gladful that the OpenSmalltalk VM is as tolerant as it is.)
I hope this was a bit interesting to you!
Will study, thanks!
Example: do step through to the [^2] block and then step
through
again
[^2] ensure: []
Traditionally, you end up in the unwind block. In the new Trace debugger you end up with the #cannotReturn:
context
as if the computation just ran until the end.
Hm, I cannot reproduce this. If I step through ^2 and then step
through
again, I land in Context>>terminateTo:. Are you using the latest version of trunk and TraceDebugger? However, you currently end
up in
#cannotReturn: when stepping beyond the
ProcessoractiveProcesssuspend
in the bottom context of a process using the TraceDebugger. This
is
because other than the normal debugger, the TraceDebugger does
not
yet
honor the suspended/terminated state of the interrupted process.
Maybe
it should ...
Thanks for your thoughts and I'm always happy about more! :-)
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk
On 2024-01-01T19:25:04+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote:
Hi Christoph,
sorry, a follow-up question :)
If I turn off the preference "Show call tree in
TraceDebugger" am
I
right to expect the Trace debugger behavior would be
equivalent
to
the
traditional one?
In other words: if I run the traditional debugger and the
Trace
one
side
by side, should they display analogous steps?
In the other message I wrote about a different way to
simulate
primitive
calls.
However, I've noticed other irregularities so that's why I
started
wondering maybe my assumption was wrong and the Trace
debugger is
designed to present the simulation differently. Please
advise.
Example: do step through to the [^2] block and then step
through
again
[^2] ensure: []
Traditionally, you end up in the unwind block. In the new Trace debugger you end up with the #cannotReturn:
context
as
if the computation just ran until the end.
Is this expected? (My guess is it isn't but can't figure out
why)
Thanks again, Jaromir
On 01-Jan-24 3:31:29 PM, "Jaromir Matas" <mail(a)jaromir.net>
wrote:
>Hi Christoph, > >Is it ok that I ask questions about the new debugger? What
would
be
the
>best format for such a "Q&A" - here or perhaps within a
topic on
>squeak-smalltalk/squeak-object-memory? I don't expect a
flood of
>questions but to get a bit familiar with your debugger it
would
help
>tremendously to be able to ask right away instead of
trudging
through
>the code/help :) The code usually helps to understand
**how**
things
>work, the mechanics, but rarely **why**, the intentions. > > > you can also turn off the preference "Show call tree in >TraceDebugger" > >Thanks, that helps to familiarize myself with the new
functionalities
>"step-by-step", and not be overwhelmed by all the might of
the
call
>tree :) Being able to go back is already a hell of an
improvement!
Or
>when you open an inspector on a context the context's state
gets
frozen
>in time and won't change when you proceed debugging -
another
>groundbreaking change! > >Question: >In the traditional debugger, when you step into a primitive,
the
>primitive gets executed and the simulation moves over the
primitive
>call. The Trace debugger, however, starts executing the
fallback
code
>of the primitive call - why is that? > >Screenshot after step into #terminateTo: > > > >Thanks again, >Jaromir > >On 31-Dec-23 2:16:32 AM,
christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
>wrote: > >>Hi Jaromir, >> >>thanks a lot for trying it out!! Your feedback means a lot
to
me.
:-)
>> >>Indeed you hit a pretty unfortunate example. The
TraceDebugger
is
not
>>ready for all your clever investigations regarding
non-local
returns
>>and unwinding. ;-) In fact, your example reveals another
limitation
>>that I forgot to mention in the announcement, which regards
programs
>>with irregular context switches - e.g.,
generators/coroutines,
but
>>also non-local returns through unwind contexts. This is
because
the
>>TraceDebugger stores and displays all method invocations in
a
tree,
>>but in the case of manual context switches, there is no
single
global
>>tree - its structure would change over the execution time,
and
when
>>selecting a method invocation, it is not even clear to what
parent
>>(sender) it would belong, as there might be multiple. The
current
>>solution is to display the tree from the perspective of the
stack
at
>>the viewed point in time (see also the '@ <timeIndex>' in
the
window
>>title), so it looks corrupted while stepping through >>Context>>#terminateTo: as the stack is being manipulated.
(You
would
>>notice the same in a normal debugger if you turned off the
optional
>>primitive 196 in this method - for SimulationContexts this
method
>>always uses the fallback code.) >> >>Nevertheless, I have pushed some changes that should allow
you
to
step
>>out of #terminateTo: again. (You can update the
TraceDebugger
from
the
>>window menu icon at the right top, like all of my tools.)
At
some
>>point there will no method be displayed, but you can just
step
further
>>and eventually return back to the starting point. :-) If
you
want
to,
>>you can also turn off the preference "Show call tree in
TraceDebugger"
>>to make the TraceDebugger look more like a normal debugger,
which
also
>>solves the context switches issue. But in general - unless
you
are
>>debugging unwinding stuff - I would not recommend that as
it
removes
>>one important strength of the TraceDebugger. :-) >> >>But again, this is really not a prime example for the
TraceDebugger.
>>Better use it to explore how the simulator works. :-) For
example,
you
>>could do the following: >> >>[ContextTest debug: #testBlockCannotReturn] debugTrace. >> >>And in that trace debugger, you could select the start
method,
press
>>Cmd + f(ind), and type "return:from:" to investigate the
behavior
of
>>your solution there again, etc. >> >>Thanks for your comments! This was a good chance for me to
sort
some
>>things out! :-) >> >>Best, >>Christoph >> >>--- >>Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk >>https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk >> >>On 2023-12-30T19:04:07+00:00, mail(a)jaromir.net wrote: >> >> > Hi Christoph, >> > >> > This indeed sounds like a GREAT idea! I look forward to
seeing
your
>>use >> > cases to build the right intuition. >> > >> > In the meantime I've tried to debug/trace this example
I've
been
>>working >> > with lately: >> > >> > [^2] ensure: [] >> > >> > If I start the debugger, hit `trace it` and then `step
over`, it
>>stops >> > at Context>>terminate and the view gets corrupted (the
initial
part
>>of >> > the trace is hidden and can't be made visible unless
clicking on
>>some of >> > the pink lines - but not every line does it...) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > If I then continue stepping over it ends up with some
kind
of
error:
>> > >> > >> > Maybe this is just an unfortunate example... Or maybe
I'm
just
doing
>> > something wrong... >> > >> > At any rate - THANKS for your effort!! >> > >> > >> > On 30-Dec-23 4:37:28 PM, >>christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de >> > wrote: >> > >> > >Thanks for the reply, Dave! I will try to post one or
two
concrete
>>use >> > >cases about the TraceDebugger in the next couple of
days,
so
stay
>> > >tuned. :-) >> > > >> > >Best, >> > >Christoph >> > > >> > >--- >> > >Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk >> > >https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk >> > > >> > >On 2023-12-29T11:01:10-06:00, lewis(a)mail.msen.com
wrote:
>> > > >> > > > This sounds like really interesting work! I love the
idea of
>>being >> > > > able to interactively go back in "oops, I‘ve stepped
too
far,
>>let‘s >> > > > start all over again" situations. It will probably
take
some
>>time for >> > > > me and others to wrap our heads around the things
you
have
done,
>>so >> > > > don't be surprised if you get a delayed response to
this
>>announcement >> > > > :-) >> > > > >> > > > Congratulations! >> > > > Dave >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Dec 29 2023 at 01:42:16 AM +0100, >> > > > christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote: >> > > > > Hi all! >> > > > > >> > > > > I‘m very excited to announce a project today that
we
have
been
>> > > > > working on over the past two years: The
*TraceDebugger*
[1] is
>>a >> > >new >> > > > > back-in-time/time-travel/omniscient debugging tool
for
Squeak
>>that >> > > > > allows you to record past method activations and
states
during
>> > > > > execution and explore them later. >> > > > > >> > > > >
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger
>> > > > > >> > > > > Metacellonew >> > > > > baseline:'TraceDebugger'; >> > > > >
repository:'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger';
>> > > > > /"repository: >> > > > >
'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger:squeak60';"//"for
>>Squeak >> > > > > 6.0"/ >> > > > > get; >> > > > > load. >> > > > > >> > > > > **What can it do? (Features)** >> > > > > >> > > > > - *Record all method activations and historic
states:*
>>Normally >> > >step >> > > > > through a program in the debugger while
automatically
>>recording its >> > > > > execution. >> > > > > - *Replay execution of a traced program:* Navigate
through
all
>> > > > > method invocations using the /*context tree*/ or
the
/*Step
>> > >Back/Step >> > > > > Forward*/ buttons (to avoid these "oops, I‘ve
stepped
too
far,
>> > > > > let‘s start all over again" situations). >> > > > > - *Interact with historic states:* Inspect/explore
snapshots
>>of >> > > > > objects or send them any message. >> > > > > - *State-centric debugging using the ***/History >>Explorer*/**:* >> > > > > Gather, explore, and visualize all changes to an >>object/expression >> > > > > over the recorded time ("When did this >> > >variable/collection/screenshot >> > > > > change?"). >> > > > > - *Additional navigation tools* for searching and
filtering
>>the >> > > > > context tree. >> > > > > - *Focus on interactivity:* No hours of recording,
no
GBs
of
>>mem >> > > > > consumption - at least for common small to medium
programs.
>> > > > > - *UI resembles the classic Smalltalk debugger:*
You'll
find
>>your >> > > > > familiar stepping buttons, code browsing tools,
inspectors,
>>and >> > > > > shortcuts - plus more. >> > > > > >> > > > > The TraceDebugger is a general-purpose tool and
not
tied
to
>> > > > > particular domains. In the past months, we have
successfully
>>used >> > >it >> > > > > to understand several bugs and interaction
patterns in
the
>>Trunk >> > > > > (Morphic layout/rendering, compiler/decompiler,
code
>>simulation, >> > > > > …). The tool is also self-supporting, so you can
debug
a
>> > > > > TraceDebugger from another TraceDebugger. :-) >> > > > > >> > > > > **What can‘t it do (yet)? (Limitations and future
work)**
>> > > > > >> > > > > - *High performance:* While (sufficiently) fast
enough
for
>>most >> > > > > small to medium workloads, tracing very compute-
or
>>mem-intensive >> > > > > operations may require more time (ex.:
compiler/decompiler
>> > > > > invocation: <1s, HTTPS request: <10s, tool
building:
<5m,
>>complex >> > > > > rendering: minutes up to hours). >> > > > > - *Not a dataflow analyzer:* The TraceDebugger
does
not
track
>> > > > > dataflow events (e.g., argument passing) but only
state
>>changes. >> > > > > - *No tracing of external states/events* for
FFI/OSProcess
or
>> > >custom >> > > > > VM modules. >> > > > > - *No support for advanced language concepts* such
as
identity
>> > > > > forwarding/write barriers. >> > > > > >> > > > > **How does it work? (Implementation)** >> > > > > >> > > > > In one sentence: To record message sends and side
effects,
we
>> > > > > decorate the execution of certain bytecodes with
tracing
>>extensions >> > > > > by modifying the code simulation using
SimulationStudio
[2].
>> > > > > >> > > > > In one paragraph: The program is executed in a
specialized
>>code >> > > > > simulator that overrides instructions for sending
messages
>>(e.g., >> > > > > send, superSend) and for performing side-effects
(e.g.,
>> > >popIntoRcvr, >> > > > > primitiveAtPut, push). All message sends are
recorded
in a
>>tree and >> > > > > all changed object slots are stored in a sparse
time-dependent
>> > >memory >> > > > > structure before they are overwritten. For
time-traveling,
the
>>tree >> > > > > is traversed using a cursor. For accessing
historic
objects, a
>> > >proxy >> > > > > evaluates all messages sent to an object in
another
>>specialized >> > > > > simulator (retracing simulator) that emulates
historic
states
>>for >> > >the >> > > > > requested point in time by forwarding read
primitives
(e.g.,
>> > > > > pushRcvr, primitiveAt) to the recorded memory. For
gathering
>>state >> > > > > changes in the History Explorer efficiently, the
query
is
>>evaluated >> > > > > in a range retracing simulator with vectorization
and
fork
>> > >semantics. >> > > > > >> > > > > In academic terms: We have published two papers
about
the
>> > > > > TraceDebugger that provide further details about
its
>>implementation >> > > > > and its applications for program exploration,
"Object-Centric
>> > > > > Time-Travel Debugging: Exploring Traces of
Objects"
[3]
and
>> > > > > "Time-Awareness in Object Exploration Tools:
Toward In
Situ
>> > > > > Omniscient Debugging" [4]. >> > > > > >> > > > > In Smalltalk: Just check out the code base and
explore
it
by
>> > > > > yourself! The class comments in TraceDebugger >> > >code://TraceDebugger >> > > > > and TDBCursor code://TDBCursor should provide
good
starting
>> > >points. >> > > > > >> > > > > **How can I use it?** >> > > > > >> > > > > Please try it out and report feedback! The
TraceDebugger
>>supports >> > > > > the latest Squeak Trunk and Squeak 6.0. You can
either
>>download a >> > > > > prepared all-in-one bundle on GitHub: >> > > > > >> > > > >
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger/releases
>> > > > > >> > > > > Or you can install it into your own image using
Metacello:
>> > > > > >> > > > > Metacellonew >> > > > > baseline:'TraceDebugger'; >> > > > >
repository:'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger';
>> > > > > /"repository: >> > > > >
'github://hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger:squeak60';"//"for
>>Squeak >> > > > > 6.0"/ >> > > > > get; >> > > > > load. >> > > > > >> > > > > To get started, just open a normal debugger (e.g.,
by
>>selecting an >> > > > > expression and pressing Cmd+Shift+D to debug it)
and
then
>>press the >> > > > > "Trace It" button on the right. There‘s also some
pretty
>>detailed >> > > > > documentation in the Help Browser <code://
TraceDebugger
>>showHelp> >> > > > > that covers everything you should know. >> > > > > >> > > > > My goal is to improve convenience and provide a
useful
tool
>>for the >> > > > > community, so I‘m very excited to hear your
impressions,
>>ideas, and >> > > > > thoughts. Here, on GitHub, or in a private
message.
Let‘s
have
>>a >> > > > > great discussion! :-) >> > > > > >> > > > > Best, >> > > > > >> > > > > Christoph (and Marcel) >> > > > > >> > > > > PS: Props to Eliot who brought up the original
idea of
>>"subclassing >> > > > > from Context" for other reasons four years ago.
[5]
>> > > > > >> > > > > [1]
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-tracedebugger
>> > > > > [2]
https://github.com/LinqLover/SimulationStudio
>> > > > > [3] Christoph Thiede, Marcel Taeumel, and Robert
Hirschfeld.
>>2023. >> > > > > Object-Centric Time-Travel Debugging: Exploring
Traces
of
>>Objects. >> > > > > https://doi.org/10.1145/3594671.3594678 In
/Companion
>>Proceedings >> > > > > of the 7th International Conference on the Art,
Science,
and
>> > > > > Engineering of Programming/ (/<Programming>'23
Companion/),
>>March >> > > > > 13–17, 2023, Tokyo, Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA,
7
pages.
>>DOI: >> > > > > 10.1145/3594671.3594678 >>https://doi.org/10.1145/3594671.3594678. >> > > > > PDF:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3594671.3594678
>> > > > > [4] Christoph Thiede, Marcel Taeumel, and Robert
Hirschfeld.
>>2023. >> > > > > Time-Awareness in Object Exploration Tools: Toward
In
Situ
>> > >Omniscient >> > > > > Debugging.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3622758.3622892 In
>> > > > > /Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGPLAN International
Symposium
>>on New >> > > > > Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on
Programming
and
>>Software/ >> > > > > (/Onward! '23/), October 25–27, 2023, Cascais,
Portugal.
ACM,
>>New >> > > > > York, NY, USA, 14 pages. DOI:
10.1145/3622758.3622892
>> > > > > https://doi.org/10.1145/3622758.3622892. PDF: >> > > > >
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3622758.3622892
>> > > > > [5] >> > > > > >> > >>
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2019-October/204803.html
>> > > > > >> > > > > --- >> > > > > /Sent from//Squeak Inbox Talk >> > > > >
https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk/
Best, Christoph
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk