3 ms·

You're doing rubber duck debugging all wrong

14 points by danielwbean 6y ago

nestorD 6y ago
One good tip I got to rubber duck debug without another human was to write your questions / explanations in an email or a chat. I found that indeed, writing an email explaining a problem to a colleague was helpful to solve it despite me never sending the email.
- wildmanx 6y ago
  This. That's one of the reasons I'm glad I work in a team with competent colleagues. Not just because I would expect them to answer such an email/message/bug report comment competently, but I feel encouraged to reach out _and_ feel it necessary to already myself go into detail and explain all assumptions I have, everything how I see it, hypotheses etc. With "dumb" colleagues (which includes a rubber duck), I'd never do it on this level. So, often times either I solve a problem while writing all this down to them (or for me/others to read later), or after one or two cycles of them pointing out something that they didn't understand or didn't follow. I'll then have to go back and clarify and maybe refresh/refine my own knowledge and it turns out that that's where the problem was.
- dr_kiszonka 6y ago
  I have had the same experience when drafting SO questions.
- gnachman 6y ago
  Yes! I compose an email to a big group of people I respect. That forces me to be extra careful.
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  This is often what happens when I ask questions on Stack Overflow. I start a question and then realize I either have the answer or that the question does not make sense.
skmurphy 6y ago
This article offers some useful elaborations on the "rubber ducking" or "Spaniel Method." I blogged about this in https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2015/09/25/asking-questions-from-a-caring-perspective/ https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2015/09/25/asking-questions-fr... and found an earlier description in a paper published in ACM SIGPLAN in December 1998 “Literate Programming and the ‘Spaniel’ Method” by Nick Hatzigeorgiu and Apostolos Syropoulos. Note that this is a year before Pragmatic Programmer came out. They relate the following advice on “The Spaniel Method” a professor offered Apostolos Syropoulos in response to a request for help debugging a seemingly intractable problem in a program that he was working on: "As is often the case with baffling errors it is really quite simple. We tend to fixate on incorrect assumptions, and overlook the obvious, surprisingly frequently. I have found that one way to break through such barriers is to use the ‘Spaniel’ method: Carefully explain the program to your dog. Since the dog knows nothing of programming, you must justify every statement you make. In the process you will often discover the mistake.” W. W. Waite I traced a connection to the Quaker Clearness Committee model, which suggests that the best way for a small group of people to help an individual navigate a thorny problem is not to offer advice but to ask questions designed to uncover greater clarity about the situation. But this article was useful in drawing a connection to what is also called "Brainwriting" (a model for brainstorming that starts with everyone writing their ideas down first and then comparing them pairwise before moving into a group session) or the 1-2-4-all method from liberating structures http://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/ http://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/ Essentially you use an escalating series of techniques that expose your problem/ignorance to wider audiences, wasting less of other people's time because you frame the problem more clearly as you go--and you may solve it before you ask a large audience for help.
sys_64738 6y ago
This is simply a methodology for getting the debugger to explain what the problem is in a clear and concise way. It's a variation of the 30 second elevator pitch. In other word, if you can't explain the problem then do you know what you're trying to solve?

14 points by danielwbean 6y ago

One good tip I got to rubber duck debug without another human was to write your questions / explanations in an email or a chat. I found that indeed, writing an email explaining a problem to a colleague was helpful to solve it despite me never sending the email.

wildmanx 6y ago
This. That's one of the reasons I'm glad I work in a team with competent colleagues. Not just because I would expect them to answer such an email/message/bug report comment competently, but I feel encouraged to reach out _and_ feel it necessary to already myself go into detail and explain all assumptions I have, everything how I see it, hypotheses etc. With "dumb" colleagues (which includes a rubber duck), I'd never do it on this level. So, often times either I solve a problem while writing all this down to them (or for me/others to read later), or after one or two cycles of them pointing out something that they didn't understand or didn't follow. I'll then have to go back and clarify and maybe refresh/refine my own knowledge and it turns out that that's where the problem was.
dr_kiszonka 6y ago
I have had the same experience when drafting SO questions.
gnachman 6y ago
Yes! I compose an email to a big group of people I respect. That forces me to be extra careful.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
This is often what happens when I ask questions on Stack Overflow. I start a question and then realize I either have the answer or that the question does not make sense.

skmurphy 6y ago

This article offers some useful elaborations on the "rubber ducking" or "Spaniel Method." I blogged about this in https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2015/09/25/asking-questions-from-a-caring-perspective/ https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2015/09/25/asking-questions-fr... and found an earlier description in a paper published in ACM SIGPLAN in December 1998 “Literate Programming and the ‘Spaniel’ Method” by Nick Hatzigeorgiu and Apostolos Syropoulos. Note that this is a year before Pragmatic Programmer came out. They relate the following advice on “The Spaniel Method” a professor offered Apostolos Syropoulos in response to a request for help debugging a seemingly intractable problem in a program that he was working on: "As is often the case with baffling errors it is really quite simple. We tend to fixate on incorrect assumptions, and overlook the obvious, surprisingly frequently. I have found that one way to break through such barriers is to use the ‘Spaniel’ method: Carefully explain the program to your dog. Since the dog knows nothing of programming, you must justify every statement you make. In the process you will often discover the mistake.” W. W. Waite I traced a connection to the Quaker Clearness Committee model, which suggests that the best way for a small group of people to help an individual navigate a thorny problem is not to offer advice but to ask questions designed to uncover greater clarity about the situation. But this article was useful in drawing a connection to what is also called "Brainwriting" (a model for brainstorming that starts with everyone writing their ideas down first and then comparing them pairwise before moving into a group session) or the 1-2-4-all method from liberating structures http://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/ http://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/ Essentially you use an escalating series of techniques that expose your problem/ignorance to wider audiences, wasting less of other people's time because you frame the problem more clearly as you go--and you may solve it before you ask a large audience for help.

sys_64738 6y ago

This is simply a methodology for getting the debugger to explain what the problem is in a clear and concise way. It's a variation of the 30 second elevator pitch. In other word, if you can't explain the problem then do you know what you're trying to solve?