Let's see what happens next when you debug via logging : When you actually have an exception and you put a `console.log(some_var);` in your code and then you r

Let's see what happens next when you debug via logging : When you actually have an exception and you put a `console.log(some_var);` in your code and then you reach it. Your next step is usually to fix your code and run it again. This time you see the corrected value in your log. Easy fix. If the problem, though, is caused by some other part of the code, then you need to move the `console.log` statement up in your callers' functions until you see where the problem is. That sucks. Now let's see what happens when you use a debugger : When you reach that point, you check your variable, see that there is something wrong with it, check the caller, step inside the caller and manipulate the code, until you see everything is where it is supposed to be. One shot ( run ) fixes all. Now straight to the point : > Are you sure it helps more than console logging? Until you get used to the debugger, you will ask yourself this question. Console logging is bad for recursive functions, loops, huge variables, etc. How many times have you write : `console.log(var);` and then one run later `console.log(var['some property'])` and even go deep? > Would you be able to debug something without these tools? Sure :) Sometimes I don't use it at all. e.g. when I'm doing a quick thing and use Sublime Text instead of WebStorm. > Do you think potentially these tools abstract some of the work away from you? I haven't run any benchmarks. Maybe I'm a bit slower with a debugger for 90% of the exceptions, but there is always an exception, hard to be console.logged, that compensates all that time.