4 ms·
"How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging the code output by the tool?" How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scr
by ohyes 16y ago
"How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging the code output by the tool?"
How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging code put out by myself?
I am going to do the scrutinizing and debugging either way!
How is my attitude about bugs carefree? They are everywhere. They are inevitable.
That isn't carefree, those are the facts of life. You screw up, I screw up, Tom screws up.
(I consider myself more of the paranoid camp wrt bugs, personally).
I agree that at a minimum an IDE has to do the things you listed.
If I had a tool that generated code pretty much as good as mine, that I could debug and ship, where would the loss be? The tool doesn't exist, and probably won't exist, but if it did, it would be awesome.
- billybob 16y ago"How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging the code output by the tool?" How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging code put out by myself? ------ Small point: I'd much rather debug errors I introduced than ones a program did. If I made the errors, they will have a familiarity about them - "oh, I always misspell that," or "I wasn't paying attention there." I can't predict how a program might get it wrong.
- Snoddas 16y agoI'd much rather debug errors I didn't write myself, they are much easier to find. I find that code I wrote (often) scans the way I intended to write it, not the way I wrote it.
- mfukar 16y ago"How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging the code output by the tool?" How would it be useful to me, if I spent my time scrutinizing and debugging code put out by myself? To contrast those too, consider the familiarity you already possess with your code, as opposed to the code that was written by others.