I think this is a good point. But there's a balance. Questioning tools (blame is borderline useless) can be useful of course. I think it boils down to -- be hu

I think this is a good point. But there's a balance. Questioning tools (blame is borderline useless) can be useful of course. I think it boils down to -- be humble about whatever context you're operating in -- so as to understand it and use it fully. But that doesn't mean one should stop questioning. The fact that gcc doesn't warn about a lack of return values (without the appropriate -W flags) is pretty silly. Maybe if you're programming assembly as much as you are C, you don't have to worry about that. But most people who use gcc don't exactly know assembly (though they should!). The tool itself is fairly well-documented, but it's not perfect. Could be improved. Actually, I don't know. Maybe it is good the way gcc and gdb require the programmer to step up and be more active about the whole process (and maybe learn assembly and how the machine is actually working). So I don't know the right approach. But there is a risk in just 'accepting' tools as they are. Hmm. I think it's more like -- channel your problem with a tool into a better understanding of what's going on.