«

On November 30, 2010 15:09, in comp.lang.c, rgrdev_@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Despite the luminaries here telling us that debuggers are useless and
> that its twice as hard to debug a program as is it is write code
> properly the first time,

Huh?? I've never read /that/ opinion here. Are you sure that you got that
right? Or are you just exaggerating for effect?

> I thought some of you might enjoy this
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0229726822034#
>
> This Stanford lecturer agrees with me : debuggers help you track state
> and force test conditions in a controlled manner.

Yes, a good debugger can do all that.

> Obviously he's not as
> smart as the people here who claim they prefer to read a print out .....

Again, I've never read /that/ opinion here.

OTOH, I /have/ read (and stated myself) that often there is no need for a
debugger, and, in many instances, a debugger is often not available.

For instance, in the job I retired from, we were /forbidden/ to run a
debugger on production code in a production environment. In fact,
there /was no debugger installed/ in that environment. Should an abend
occur, we were expected to diagnose and repair the error from program
listings, data listings, and a symbolic dump alone.

Perhaps you (mis)remember these sorts of statements?

--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
Me: http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | Just Linux: http://justlinux.ca/
---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------

"Lew Pitcher" <> wrote in message
news:BpeJo.65215$...
> On November 30, 2010 15:09, in comp.lang.c, rgrdev_@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Despite the luminaries here telling us that debuggers are useless and
>> that its twice as hard to debug a program as is it is write code
>> properly the first time,
>
> Huh?? I've never read /that/ opinion here. Are you sure that you got that
> right? Or are you just exaggerating for effect?

He's trolling.



Brian
--
Day 664 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project.
Current music playing: None.

Default User wrote:
> He's trolling.

Being the number one Xenophobe on clc I would say no. No one would dare
on your internet.

Richard wrote:
> "Default User" <> writes:
>
>> "Lew Pitcher" <> wrote in message
>> news:BpeJo.65215$...
>>> On November 30, 2010 15:09, in comp.lang.c, rgrdev_@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Despite the luminaries here telling us that debuggers are useless and
>>>> that its twice as hard to debug a program as is it is write code
>>>> properly the first time,
>>> Huh?? I've never read /that/ opinion here. Are you sure that you got that
>>> right? Or are you just exaggerating for effect?
>
> I don't believe you.
>
> This has been discussed numerous times and at length here.

Then provide references to the messages where this was said.

In article <>,
Richard Harter <> blathered:
....
>I wouldn't wait for references if I were you. Most of Richard's
>discussion consisted of misrepresenting what other people said.

Liar!

--
One of the best lines I've heard lately:

Obama could cure cancer tomorrow, and the Republicans would be
complaining that he had ruined the pharmaceutical business.

(Heard on Stephanie Miller = but the sad thing is that there is an awful lot
of direct truth in it. We've constructed an economy in which eliminating
cancer would be a horrible disaster. There are many other such examples.)

On Dec 11, 11:25*pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > "Lew Pitcher" <lpitc...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
> >news:BpeJo.65215$...
> >> On November 30, 2010 15:09, in comp.lang.c, rgrd...@gmail.com wrote:


> >>> Despite the luminaries here telling us that debuggers are useless and
> >>> that its twice as hard to debug a program as is it is write code
> >>> properly the first time,
>
> >> Huh?? I've never read /that/ opinion here. Are you sure that you got that
> >> right? Or are you just exaggerating for effect?
>
> I don't believe you.
>
> This has been discussed numerous times and at length here.

so you'll have no trouble producing cites.

what most people are saying is that there are more ways to skin a cat
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

In some cases debuggers are simply not available. The end-users'
environment is significantly different from the developers'
environment. Then other things like logs and traces can be handy.

There are others who sing the Unit Test cause. They apparently don't
bebug because their stuff doesn't break (perhaps they only nearly
achieve this).

I think many of us find the practice of "just stepping through" the
code peculiar. Perhaps you should consider the idea that not everyone
who disgrees with you is a moron or only writes software for himself
in his back bedroom.

The fact that you retrigger this discussion with the same...
misleading... claims every six months is an indication that you
sometimes enjoy a good troll.

> What because
> apparent was that many people here have been languishing in one man
> teams in some forgotten backwater for so long that they actually had
> zero idea what a debugger was or what it can do to help the development
> process.
>
> > He's trolling.
>
> I most certainly was not.

if it quacks like a duck...

> As you would know if you actually contributed anything here other than
> "Keith says" posts.

footnote: I've recently moved to an environment where debuggers are
much more heavily used. I'm starting to get the bug a little, but I'd
still rather write test cases.

On 12/13/10 06:12 AM, Richard Harter wrote:
>
> There are discussable issues here. Frex, in what environments are
> debuggers particularly useful and when are they not useful.
>
> People accustomed to working without debuggers (either by need or by
> preference) use techniques such as log files, traces, options to
> generate debug printouts, unit tests, regression testing, incremental
> development, modular coding, etc. How much does having a debugger at
> hand buy you if you have those resources in place?

As one who practices test driven development, my ideal would be to never
use a debugger (and I don't in PHP). But sometimes it's a little too
tempting to run tests in the debugger to see why a change broke them,
rather than simply reverting to change and trying again. Whether this
is good or bad practice, I don't have an opinion. Yes it slows me down
(we all know how time consuming a debugger session can be, kind of a
programmers video game!) but I probably learn something from tracking
the case of the failure.

I do run tests under the debugger with memory access and leak checking
enabled from time to time to ensure nothing has slipped through the cracks.

While other techniques can be used for crash analysis, the debugger (if
available) is the best tool for examining core files.

--
Ian Collins

On Dec 12, 5:12*pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:59:03 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley
>
> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Some very sensible comments.)
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 11:25=A0pm, Richard <rgrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Default User" <defaultuse...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> This has been discussed numerous times and at length here.
>
> >so you'll have no trouble producing cites.
>
> >what most people are saying is that there are more ways to skin a cat
> >than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>
> >In some cases debuggers are simply not available. The end-users'
> >environment is significantly different from the developers'
> >environment. *Then other things like logs and traces can be handy.
>
> >There are others who sing the Unit Test cause. They apparently don't
> >bebug because their stuff doesn't break (perhaps they only nearly
> >achieve this).
>
> >I think many of us find the practice of "just stepping through" the
> >code peculiar. Perhaps you should consider the idea that not everyone
> >who disgrees with you is a moron or only writes software for himself
> >in his back bedroom.
>
> >The fact that you retrigger this discussion with the same...
> >misleading... claims every six months is an indication that you
> >sometimes enjoy a good troll.
>
> That could be, but I opine that he actually believes what he says.
> Sad, really.
>
> There are discussable issues here.

though probably not with richard <noname>


> *Frex, in what environments are
> debuggers particularly useful and when are they not useful. *
>
> People accustomed to working without debuggers (either by need or by
> preference) use techniques such as log files, traces, options to
> generate debug printouts, unit tests, regression testing, incremental
> development, modular coding, etc.

I meant to put the humble assert() in my original list. Of course
*that* gets on richard <noname>'s goat as well.

Reasoning about code.


> How much does having a debugger at
> hand buy you if you have those resources in place?

going through core dumps and finding out what actually happened when
the other things let you down. Sometimes you don't manage to think of
every possible failure mode in advance.

On 12/14/10 03:33 PM, Richard wrote:
> (Richard Harter) writes:
>>
>> I wouldn't wait for references if I were you. Most of Richard's
>> discussion consisted of misrepresenting what other people said.
>>
>
> Why are you telling porkies?
>
> I could produce all sorts of links but then I would lower myself to that
> of the childish "regs".
>
> Some one even posts here with that Kernighan quote in his signature.
>
> The arch-deacon of c.l.c claimed debuggers were unnecessary.

Who?

> Most of the "regs" agreed. It soon become apparent few, if any, had the
> slightest clue about maintaining huge code bases, especially those
> created by others and how a good debugger can aid that process : even if
> only to familiarise yourself with program structure and data flow. never
> mind HW breakpoints, conditions forking, and runtime data
> changes. Indeed many people reckoned "printf" met their needs. I would
> fire any programmer that worked in my teams who peppered the code with
> printfs - it's amateur, error prone and time consuming.

I think most posts on this thread are claiming the debuggers are a
useful tool, with one descenting voice.

--
Ian Collins

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:13:20 +1300, Ian Collins <ian->
wrote:

>I think most posts on this thread are claiming the debuggers are a
>useful tool, with one descenting voice.
>
>--
>Ian Collins

descenting
surgical excision of the sebaceous glands on the top of the head of
the male goat or the anal sacs of the skunk in order to eliminate the
unpleasant odors each gives off.

dissenting
1. To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree.
2. To withhold assent or approval.
n.
1. Difference of opinion or feeling; disagreement.
2. The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an
established church; nonconformity.
3. Law A justice's refusal to concur with the opinion of a majority,
as on a higher court. Also called dissenting opinion.