4 ms·
The lure of gdb is that you do not need to write the logging code. But I am reminded of the diddy: "If a system has a Powerful Debugger, what does that say abo
by GeorgeTirebiter 4y ago
The lure of gdb is that you do not need to write the logging code.
But I am reminded of the diddy: "If a system has a Powerful Debugger, what does that say about the apparent need for a Powerful Debugger?" --- I read that as: if you have a kick-a* debugger, you have a really complicated system. Maybe the answer is to make the system less complicated.
- geophile 4y agoThat doesn't make sense to me. Complication is mainly a property of the software you're writing, not the language in which the software is written.
- User23 4y agoIt's true that at the end of the day unnecessary complexity is largely a matter of programmer discipline or lack thereof. However, some languages give the programmer considerably more opportunities for unnecessary complexity than others. And some language/runtime combinations make writing correct software impossible. For example back in the day Perl wasn't properly reentrant, so any signal could possibly lead to undefined behavior. There were ways to mitigate the problem, but not to eliminate it.
- GeorgeTirebiter 4y agoYes. Extracting simplicity from complexity is hard, and that is why most systems are unnecessarily complex. And I mean: 'unnecessarily' in that there exists simpler systems that perform the same function with less complexity. I'm late-stage career here, so I've seen (most of) it all. There seems to be additional complexity piled on 'just because' so often. Occasionally, I see a system and I can't think of a simpler way to do it. That's rare. I bet it's rare for you, too.