Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That was my feeling too. I kept reading through the list and nodding, wondering where the "controversy" was supposed to be.

Regarding your criticism of #2, I think you're arguing orthogonally. The point to me seemed to be against TDD and the idea that code written "to" a test is inherently better. The point is to write and execute tests, not to fetishize how those tests are written or run.

And your point about #10 is just plain wrong, sorry. Arguments of the form "debuggers are easier than hacked-up logging" always presuppose that the "hacked-up logging" is hard to do. The fact that you feel more comfortable typing into gdb or whatever than you do adding a line of code and rebuilding tells me that you don't feel comfortable building and running your code. If that's the case, then you have already lost. Debug via printf works better because projects designed for debug via printf are inherently better. This applies to fancy tracing tools as well. They have their place, but if you can't whip out a printf then you need to fix that first.



And, you can look at logs from production when something goes wrong. In my experience the debugger can only take the place of logs if you have access to the same data, and in many organizations you don't get that luxury.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: