> If I use a debugger--approximately two hours wasted if I'm completely unaware where the problem is. If I instead try to spend ten minutes logically explaining

> If I use a debugger--approximately two hours wasted if I'm completely unaware where the problem is. If I instead try to spend ten minutes logically explaining the program, usually I fix the problem and also gain a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the program. Er.... I’m pretty sure debugger advocates aren’t advocating using debuggers without logical thought. Usually, it’s more about that debugger is a useful tool when one spends three hours logically explaining the problem but can’t figure it out. If you can find all kinds of bugs in ten minutes, then great! You’re officially an endorsed 10x programmer. :-) I can’t, for some bugs, (reproducing bugs in complex programs is a difficult hurdle for me too) so I use a debugger. > I find that code that has been written mainly with debuggers is often full of tons of errors, often simple negations which have been worked around an even number of times. Usually, I find that code that is thoughtfully written and extensively debugged in the debugger is the most robust part of the program, but YYMV.