9 ms·
1. if you keep your methods small, and have tests, you rarely need a debugger. 2. the generated js isn't that complex and you can easily map it in your head- i
by amikazmi 14y ago
1. if you keep your methods small, and have tests, you rarely need a debugger.
2. the generated js isn't that complex and you can easily map it in your head- it's not like trying to "debug" asm generated from C.
3. you'll get debugging soon (as wmf said, source maps- now waiting for cs guys to support in chrome, Rubymine IDE supports in D1 2013)
4. productivity is important.
- lucian303 14y agoAll of which add _unnecessary_ complexity and time to the development lifecycle. Don't tell me you don't need a debugger in JS no matter how small your methods are and how many tests you have. All code has bugs. Period. You are arguing against fact. That's fallacious.
- amikazmi 14y agoFalse dichotomy. "All code has bugs" claim is true, but it doesn't mean you need debuggers in order to solve/fix the problems. If your methods ARE small enough, and you have tests for OTHER cases, printing/console is actually faster (at least for me) than using a debugger. I have a JS debugger in firebug, and I rarely use it (for pure JS, not just CoffeeScript output).
- lucian303 14y agoThat's your experience and anecdotal. Advocating against the use of a debugger when it's necessary (and it is necessary a lot especially with others' code) just shows you really do not understand program flow, let alone software development. I'm glad you only work on your own code and you should be too.