2 ms·

There's a problem with his argument he doesn't really address. The baby analogy isn't perfect because having a baby is a physical process with a set success rat

There's a problem with his argument he doesn't really address. The baby analogy isn't perfect because having a baby is a physical process with a set success rate. So the math checks out, but debugging isn't a physical process. Debugging is problem solving. When debugging there is likely to be a lot of overlap in the ideas and methods the individual debuggers use in order to find the bugs. Obviously, the debuggers can communicate with each other about what doesn't work so there are gains there. But in terms of thought processes, there will exist this overlap. It is only in the places where there is no overlap that an extra debugger is useful. And as more debuggers are added, the odds that any additional debugger will provide independent thought is diminished. His model is too simple because it does not account for this overlap.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Id go further. The best debuggers don't look for the bug; they look to prove what Can't be the problem, reducing the search space geometrically. With parallel debugging efforts, many of the debuggers will be pointlessly crawling through code and tests that have already been discounted. In my experience hard bugs don't get solved until a skilled debugger is found to look for them. Up til then little or nothing gets done. And skilled debuggers are small in number, and their efforts are necessarily serialized.
- malisper 12y ago
  I believe you are missing the point he is trying to make. With parallel debugging a lot of the time will be spent looking through code that has already been checked (more women can't have a single baby in less than nine months). The only thing that changes is the expected amount of time it will take to find the bug (with more women there is a higher chance of having a baby in nine months). Even if you do have the best debuggers, they can still miss the bug. By throwing more debuggers at the problem, there is a higher chance the bug will be found in a given time frame.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Id go further. The best debuggers don't look for the bug; they look to prove what Can't be the problem, reducing the search space geometrically. With parallel debugging efforts, many of the debuggers will be pointlessly crawling through code and tests that have already been discounted. In my experience hard bugs don't get solved until a skilled debugger is found to look for them. Up til then little or nothing gets done. And skilled debuggers are small in number, and their efforts are necessarily serialized.

malisper 12y ago
I believe you are missing the point he is trying to make. With parallel debugging a lot of the time will be spent looking through code that has already been checked (more women can't have a single baby in less than nine months). The only thing that changes is the expected amount of time it will take to find the bug (with more women there is a higher chance of having a baby in nine months). Even if you do have the best debuggers, they can still miss the bug. By throwing more debuggers at the problem, there is a higher chance the bug will be found in a given time frame.