3 ms·

Crazy that I get downvoted for a perfectly valid question, go HN! I'm not saying that tests are perfect, but if you do find a bug, you write a new test and fix

Crazy that I get downvoted for a perfectly valid question, go HN! I'm not saying that tests are perfect, but if you do find a bug, you write a new test and fix it. You don't add print statements that you expect to keep around any longer than the amount of effort there is to write the test and fix the code. Maybe this product is for people who don't write tests, but even in this codebase, there is a pretty well done set of tests and zero dogfood usage that I noticed.

0xFEE1DEAD 1y ago
> but if you do find a bug, you write a new test and fix it. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here but this library is not meant to replace tests. It's for initially finding the bug for which you then write a test case (or not).
- latchkey 1y ago
  It isn't clear how this library helps one find bugs.
  - danudey 1y ago
    If you're not sure how logging debug information can help you find bugs then I'm not sure what to say. Especially if you've been programming for four decades, I would think it would be obvious how logging information can help you find logic or data errors in your code/inputs/outputs.
    - latchkey 1y ago
      I know how to write failing tests, and use a debugger.
danudey 1y ago
I think you're getting downvoted because it's not a valid question - debug logging and unit testing are two separate things, and the OP didn't say anywhere that he prefers this to unit tests. Your question presupposes a dichotomy that doesn't exist.
- latchkey 1y ago
  My statement certainly had some implied subtext that I can expand upon now... If you write tests, you don't need a specialized library for debug logging. Run the test, and set a breakpoint in your debugger.
  - danudey 1y ago
    This is only mildly offtopic, but I wonder if the following is true: Software developers who... 1. Experienced actual instruction on software development; 2. Learned to write software in C/C++/FORTRAN/Pascal/whatever; or 3. Spent a lot of time in more niche situations like system programming, embedded programming, enterprise systems, etc. ...are familiar with using debuggers as part of their workflow to inspect internal state and diagnose. In contrast, developers who... 1. Were entirely self-taught; 2. Grew up on interpreted languages (JS, Python, PHP, Perl, etc); and 3. Generally tend to write smaller, self-contained projects ...tend to just add debug logging and re-run the program. I definitely have used debuggers in the past, but as someone who almost exclusively has written in interpreted languages (or languages where the write-compile-run loop is fast, e.g. Golang), my habit is to add debug logging to more places to validate internal state as the program runs, rather than attaching a debugger and inspecting specific things manually. Either way, I think it's two separate approaches and I think in different circumstances there are definitely benefits to one or the other. In most of my Python scripts it's faster to add a `print(f"variable is {variable}")` than it would be to attach a debugger; also for a small script that's only going to run a few times, or run very occasionally, writing unit tests is often overkill because often the entire script is effectively a unit.
    - latchkey 1y ago
      I don’t know if you’re trying to make assumptions about me or you, but I am those 3 things. It is definitely different approaches and both can achieve the same goals, but having started with your approach and then learned IDE’s, debugging and writing tests, I can from my own experience say that tests and debuggers are the way to go when it comes to building long term stable applications, especially in shared environments. As for speed to attach a debugger? Lol, it is one button click in a proper IDE and the speed and utility of figuring out the solution is faster. What I am hearing from you is that you’re unwilling to put the time into learning/using the tools. Or maybe you’re just stuck in your own headspace, many developers get that way, it is why we have editor wars and whatnot.

0xFEE1DEAD 1y ago

> but if you do find a bug, you write a new test and fix it. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here but this library is not meant to replace tests. It's for initially finding the bug for which you then write a test case (or not).

latchkey 1y ago
It isn't clear how this library helps one find bugs.
- danudey 1y ago
  If you're not sure how logging debug information can help you find bugs then I'm not sure what to say. Especially if you've been programming for four decades, I would think it would be obvious how logging information can help you find logic or data errors in your code/inputs/outputs.
  - latchkey 1y ago
    I know how to write failing tests, and use a debugger.

danudey 1y ago

I think you're getting downvoted because it's not a valid question - debug logging and unit testing are two separate things, and the OP didn't say anywhere that he prefers this to unit tests. Your question presupposes a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

latchkey 1y ago
My statement certainly had some implied subtext that I can expand upon now... If you write tests, you don't need a specialized library for debug logging. Run the test, and set a breakpoint in your debugger.
- danudey 1y ago
  This is only mildly offtopic, but I wonder if the following is true: Software developers who... 1. Experienced actual instruction on software development; 2. Learned to write software in C/C++/FORTRAN/Pascal/whatever; or 3. Spent a lot of time in more niche situations like system programming, embedded programming, enterprise systems, etc. ...are familiar with using debuggers as part of their workflow to inspect internal state and diagnose. In contrast, developers who... 1. Were entirely self-taught; 2. Grew up on interpreted languages (JS, Python, PHP, Perl, etc); and 3. Generally tend to write smaller, self-contained projects ...tend to just add debug logging and re-run the program. I definitely have used debuggers in the past, but as someone who almost exclusively has written in interpreted languages (or languages where the write-compile-run loop is fast, e.g. Golang), my habit is to add debug logging to more places to validate internal state as the program runs, rather than attaching a debugger and inspecting specific things manually. Either way, I think it's two separate approaches and I think in different circumstances there are definitely benefits to one or the other. In most of my Python scripts it's faster to add a `print(f"variable is {variable}")` than it would be to attach a debugger; also for a small script that's only going to run a few times, or run very occasionally, writing unit tests is often overkill because often the entire script is effectively a unit.
  - latchkey 1y ago
    I don’t know if you’re trying to make assumptions about me or you, but I am those 3 things. It is definitely different approaches and both can achieve the same goals, but having started with your approach and then learned IDE’s, debugging and writing tests, I can from my own experience say that tests and debuggers are the way to go when it comes to building long term stable applications, especially in shared environments. As for speed to attach a debugger? Lol, it is one button click in a proper IDE and the speed and utility of figuring out the solution is faster. What I am hearing from you is that you’re unwilling to put the time into learning/using the tools. Or maybe you’re just stuck in your own headspace, many developers get that way, it is why we have editor wars and whatnot.