16 ms·

As I said, we'd have "less" but better software; that doesn't preclude we'd not have some things we have today nor does it imply better software can't be built

As I said, we'd have "less" but better software; that doesn't preclude we'd not have some things we have today nor does it imply better software can't be built with debuggers; it only means we'd have fewer less capable developers making software and thus the overall quality of what we would have would be higher than the overall quality of what we have today given how much shit code exists. There's a ton of programmers who can't code without a debugger because they don't really understand what's going on any other way than line by line. Those people would be filtered out. Debugging doesn't require a debugger, it's just the easy way to do it.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
We'd certainly have less. There would be no reason to presuppose that it would be better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14 The key to better software is learning from the research literature, not thinking that you're improving because you write nothing but ASM macros in ed(1) in a TTY emulating a VT100 from the 70s.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > There would be no reason to presuppose that it would be better: Sure there, it's been said multiple times; those still writing software would be the smartest around. That alone is reason enough to think the overall quality would be higher; if you don't believe that, then imho you don't know what overall (average) means. You're not listening, you're focusing on outliers and I'm taking about the mean. It's a valid logical inference that if you weed out less intelligent developers by making developing harder, that the average quality goes up; not the absolute quality, the average, mostly because you'd be weeding out tons of bad developers who write tons of bad software. This really isn't debatable, it's logic. Weeding out the bad raises the average quality, there's nothing to argue here, that's just a fact.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

We'd certainly have less. There would be no reason to presuppose that it would be better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14 The key to better software is learning from the research literature, not thinking that you're improving because you write nothing but ASM macros in ed(1) in a TTY emulating a VT100 from the 70s.

gnaritas 11y ago
> There would be no reason to presuppose that it would be better: Sure there, it's been said multiple times; those still writing software would be the smartest around. That alone is reason enough to think the overall quality would be higher; if you don't believe that, then imho you don't know what overall (average) means. You're not listening, you're focusing on outliers and I'm taking about the mean. It's a valid logical inference that if you weed out less intelligent developers by making developing harder, that the average quality goes up; not the absolute quality, the average, mostly because you'd be weeding out tons of bad developers who write tons of bad software. This really isn't debatable, it's logic. Weeding out the bad raises the average quality, there's nothing to argue here, that's just a fact.