3 ms·
I'm not sure if rubber duck debugging would have helped here. The problem was in the data, not the code. (I know, I know: in Lisp code is data.)
by RyanMcGreal 14y ago
I'm not sure if rubber duck debugging would have helped here. The problem was in the data, not the code. (I know, I know: in Lisp code is data.)
- DanielBMarkham 14y agoYep. I thought this through as I was typing my comment. (There must be some joke involving the use of a meta-duck, but I can't come up with it. :) (Same principle applies, of course, just LISP makes the determining of "what" a bit more tricky. (insert discussion here about the general differences between debugging imperative and functional code)))
- chernevik 14y agoThat's exactly the sort of thing a duck will tell you. "So what has changed? Let's see, new code, new server, and I fixed the commenter's comment. That was simple I just hard-hacked the comment id and . . . excuse me a second."
- RyanMcGreal 14y agoGood point. I was thinking in terms of going through the code line by line, which if anything would lead you away from the trail.
- cube13 14y agoRubber duck debugging may have actually been the distraction that caused pg to make the mistake, too!