CodeView
full-screen debugger for DOS by Microsoft
CodeView is a standalone debugger created by David Norris at Microsoft in 1985 as part of its development toolset. It originally shipped with Microsoft C 4.0 and later. It also shipped with Visual Basic for MS-DOS, Microsoft BASIC PDS, and a number of other Microsoft language products. It was one of the first debuggers for MS-DOS to be full-screen oriented, rather than line-oriented (as Microsoft's predecessors DEBUG and SYMDEB or Digital Research's SID).
Overview
When running, CodeView presents the user with several windows that can be tiled, moved, sized and otherwise manipulated via the keyboard or mouse, with CodeView 4.x providing a richer interface. Some of the windows include:
Code window – the code window showed the currently debugged code in its source code context.
Data window – a hexadecimal dump of a user-specified memory area.
Watch window – a contextual display of variables by name.
Locals window – a contextual display of variables local to the current function.
Command window – user commands (using the same or similar syntax as DEBUG and SYMDEB) could be entered here.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “CodeView” as full-screen debugger for DOS by Microsoft. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as full-screen debugger for DOS by Microsoft. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 8, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q2081953. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1985.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “CodeView”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow CodeView primary sources, CodeView archive and CodeView research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “CodeView”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “CodeView” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.