4 ms·

If you approach debugging in a very minimalist way, you should never use a debugger because it only serves to complicate things using the I/O subsystem to de

If you approach debugging in a very minimalist way, you should never use a debugger because it only serves to complicate things using the I/O subsystem to debug your program is a far more efficient way to debug. If you do things this way, you orthogonalize the optimization side of your compiler from the mess created by trying to assist the debugging process via the rather complex and intrusive (from the compiler's perspective) component called the debugger

john_moscow 8y ago
except it's much faster to put a few breakpoints than to recompile your code each time you want to add/remove a logging statement.
- jcelerier 8y ago
  > except it's much faster to put a few breakpoints than to recompile your code each time you want to add/remove a logging statement. that reeaaallly depends. I had cases where adding a printf and recompiling would take mere seconds and a gdb startup on the order of 3 to 4 minutes because recompiling only changes one shared library while GDB has to load all of them.
- khitchdee 8y ago
  If you don't use a debugger, you don't need an IDE either. A text editor and a compiler is all you need. That simplifies your programming interface a lot.
tempodox 8y ago
You should never say “never”.
- khitchdee 8y ago
  ... and then never say never again
elgis 8y ago
sometimes you might not have even printf available (very low-level software comes to mind) so you're limited to using registers. Without a debugger it would be a nightmare.
- khitchdee 8y ago
  Why would you ever need to go below the abstraction level of your high level language to debug. If you're going down into registers, you're obviously debugging the wrong way. You don't need printf's if you write directly to your screen which is easy to do.
  - elgis 8y ago
    >Why would you ever need to go below the abstraction level of your high level language to debug. I don't know what you mean by this. If you don't have f.ex. printf available you have to come up with something else. >You don't need printf's if you write directly to your screen which is easy to do. What if the hardware you're debugging doesn't have a screen?
    - khitchdee 8y ago
      Well, in that case you'll have to make do with whatever interface you are using that doesn't have a screen such as your existing debugger

john_moscow 8y ago

except it's much faster to put a few breakpoints than to recompile your code each time you want to add/remove a logging statement.

jcelerier 8y ago
> except it's much faster to put a few breakpoints than to recompile your code each time you want to add/remove a logging statement. that reeaaallly depends. I had cases where adding a printf and recompiling would take mere seconds and a gdb startup on the order of 3 to 4 minutes because recompiling only changes one shared library while GDB has to load all of them.
khitchdee 8y ago
If you don't use a debugger, you don't need an IDE either. A text editor and a compiler is all you need. That simplifies your programming interface a lot.

tempodox 8y ago

You should never say “never”.

khitchdee 8y ago
... and then never say never again

elgis 8y ago

sometimes you might not have even printf available (very low-level software comes to mind) so you're limited to using registers. Without a debugger it would be a nightmare.

khitchdee 8y ago
Why would you ever need to go below the abstraction level of your high level language to debug. If you're going down into registers, you're obviously debugging the wrong way. You don't need printf's if you write directly to your screen which is easy to do.
- elgis 8y ago
  >Why would you ever need to go below the abstraction level of your high level language to debug. I don't know what you mean by this. If you don't have f.ex. printf available you have to come up with something else. >You don't need printf's if you write directly to your screen which is easy to do. What if the hardware you're debugging doesn't have a screen?
  - khitchdee 8y ago
    Well, in that case you'll have to make do with whatever interface you are using that doesn't have a screen such as your existing debugger