|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: So the question is, is this useful?
I saw that post you're referring to.
If you look at the quality of the posts like that and the level of effort, I'd have to say "No". Not because what you would provide isn't useful, but because the people posting those types of post aren't really looking to learn debugging... They're looking for the quick answer and some code they can paste.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, sure it should be useful.
But the main points I hope you'll cover are:
The primary debugger is your own brain. Often times after giving it a bit of a rest.
Logging progress is still very effective for console applications, but I have no idea whether or not it's useful for lesser applications.
A software debugger is a last resort, for really tough bugs and really tired brains.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: A software debugger is a last resort, for really tough bugs and really tired brains.
I find coffee a better solution... and if drinking the coffee yourself doesn't help then applying it directly into the computer can provide satisfaction - it'll learn them bugs something proper.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: The primary debugger is your own brain.
And the secondary debugger is a rubber duck[^]. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Well, one is never truly alone when one has a rubber duck.
modified 17-May-18 14:50pm.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: A software debugger is a last resort, for really tough bugs and really tired brains.
On the contrary! I run the debugger on 90% of the code I write, single stepping through each line to make sure I did it right. Of course I only do that once (unless there's a bug) but given the complexity of LINQ, lambda expressions, closures, and so forth, I find it well worth the effort.
I suppose unit testing could take the place of that, but then I'd have to single step through the unit test to make sure I'd written the test right! 
Which I actually do when I write unit tests.
|
|
|
|
|
Come on! We all know that debugging is dangerous... It may reveal the truth about your code!
Anyway - true programmers use the force
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: So the question is, is this useful?
Depends on who reads it - I would suspect that the average QA visitor do not read articles...
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Is it only a minority that don't know how to debug or is this a wider issue that needs to be taught?
It seems to me (and have seen over a hundred summaries), that those Next-Big-Thing in 21 Days courses not even mentioning the possibility that a bug can get into your code...
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: am I wasting my time here?
No, despite the previous comments I believe it is a subject should have been taught seriously...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
The amusing thing is that that looks quite like one of my wrong versions of FizzBuzz when I wrote this. It's actually surprising the number of code examples I found on the web that didn't implement this very simple algorithm correctly.
So...
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: So the question is, is this useful?
Absolutely. The whole idea is that even with what looks like the second simplest of algorithms (Hello World) being the simplest) it's easy to get it wrong, and you need to know how to debug it when thinking about even something so simple actually fails.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Is it only a minority that don't know how to debug or is this a wider issue that needs to be taught?
I had a couple debugging session last week with a coworker, granted, a junior dev. What was interesting was that he was looking for the problem in all the wrong places. Before starting a debug session, one needs to ask "what exactly am I looking for and what are my initial guesses at where I might find it?" The "what" is not "where is it crashing" -- the exception tells you that, but the "why is it crashing and what are reasons I can come up with where I can go look?"
So often, I see people trying to understand why the line of code is failing or throwing an exception, not realizing that the line of code is working with data that some other function incorrectly created somewhere else in the process, that probably isn't even part of the function with the failing line.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: If it's a minority of developers, then am I wasting my time here?
No, it's the majority. But you're still wasting your time because the majority doesn't even have the awareness that they're approach to debugging is totally wrong. That's what needs to be corrected, and that's where I'd start. With the article title "You do NOT know how to debug!" 
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with you. I can't recall the last time I helped a guy sort out a problem who actually knew how to debug and use the debugger effectively. Everyone I have had to deal with doesn't approach it the right way. That is, assuming my approach is the right way. Historically, it has worked very well for me.
The wildest experience I have ever had debugging code is when I was writing a debugger for a script language I wrote and I was trying to debug the interaction between the script code and my debugger. The script engine generated machine code on the fly so it was a bit difficult to see everything that was going on. The wild part was I had three debugging sessions going on - my debugger was attached to my script process and debugging it, I had a VC++ debugger attached to my script code debugging it, and another VC++ debugger was attached to my debugger and debugging it. That was a real head-scratcher. 
|
|
|
|
|
In my years of experience, this is definitely lacking in a lot of people I have encountered. Even lecturing at university, I found this to be one of the fundamental issues that prevented students from fully understanding control and data flow.
|
|
|
|
|
imho, a majority of posters on QA do not have a clue about how to debug.
I cannot generalize from that to make inferences about other programmers in the main/wild.
I do think that debugging skill is tied closely to mastery of the facilities the IDE offers, and that mastery requires some effort.
I suspect that many QA posters are at the low-end of some general measure of: motivation; eagerness to learn; willingness to work hard to get the "bigger picture." Their questions would never be tolerated on StackOverflow.
So, yes, I think articles from you on debugging would be great.
cheers Bill
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
If you are going to write an article on debugging, make sure you include the original problem statement.
Many bugs are introduced by misinterpreting the "specs" or by having ambiguous specs.
Another approach might be to show multiple "answers" that all compile correctly, and then ask which of these best meets the spec. (Always have an option "D - none of the above")
Like a few people have pointed out, include scenarios where some other part of the program sets up a different part of the program for failure. Modern languages (C# and Java and even JavaScript) make it very easy to have multiple references to mutable objects where you were not expecting them. (It is only your private object until a reference "escapes" your scope)
|
|
|
|
|
You're assuming that the ones that didn't even try are waiting to learn.
On the other hand, when someone tells me I'm going to fail and I better learn to debug...
We were told to "desk check" before wasting (mainframe) "compiler time".
I always finished ahead of schedule ... but used the most machine time anyway.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Does the concept of crash helmets go right over your head?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know, but I'm sure it'll have an impact.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
boom tish!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it only goes over the head of crash test dummies? That seems to be what they taught us in skull.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
well Helmut Krauss sure does because my German ain't so good.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
Ironically, only when you're not wearing one. I'm a cyclist and I always wear my helmet.
I remember seeing a T-shirt once with two pictures: a brain-injured person in a hospital bed being spoon-fed by a nurse, and a helmet. The caption: YOUR CHOICE.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I'm head-over-heels for crash helmets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the solution to all your problems is Internet Explorer 6, since it has no tabs. 
modified 13-Sep-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thaddeus Jones wrote: I think the solution to all your problems is Internet Explorer 6, since it has no tabs.
While you have a point, the result would simply be multiple instances of IE6! 
|
|
|
|
|
No, I think Thaddeus is right!
If you restrict yourself to IE6 you'll soon go off this Internet thingy; it's only a fad anyway!
Phil
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author, especially if you find them impolite, inaccurate or inflammatory.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
