[naasking]

> debuggers can make it harder to trace through the full execution of a program.

Except you often don't want a full execution, you often just want a partial execution where you suspect the problem arises. I can assure you that a good UI debugger is extremely helpful. Command line debuggers less so.

[giancarlostoro]

Yeah, I feel like people who don't like debuggers either don't use IDE's with amazing debuggers, or don't take the time to learn and understand how to use them. You can do powerful things with a debugger in seconds. I still use print statements under other environments. I think 'debug' logging is useful. I prefer logging over "print" any day of the week.

[mikekchar]

This is why unit tests are so helpful. You only debug the part of the code that's broken. It's a kind of a different way of thinking and people often write what I consider to be "bad" tests -- i.e. tests that don't actually exercise real portions of the code, but rather make tautological statements about interfaces. I spend a considerable amount of time designing my code so that various scenarios are easy to set up. If you find yourself reaching for a fake/mock because it is hard to set up a scenario with real objects, it's an indication of a problem.

This extra work pays off pretty quickly, though. When I have a bug, I find a selection of tests that works with that code, add a couple of printf-equivalents and then rerun the tests. Usually I can spot the error in a couple of minutes. Being an older programmer (I worked professionally for over 10 years before Beck published the first XP book), I'm very comfortable with using a debugger. However since I started doing TDD, I have never once used one. It's just a lot faster to printf debug.

The way I've explained it before is that it's like having an automated debugger. The tests are just code paths that you would dig into if you were debugging. The expectations in the tests are simply watch points. You run the code and look at the results, only you don't have to single step it -- it just runs in a couple of seconds and gives you the results.

You may think that the overhead of writing tests would be higher than the amount saved with debugging and if it were only debugging, I think that would be true. However, one of the things I've found over the years is that I'm actually dramatically faster writing code with tests compared to writing it without tests (keep in mind that I've got nearly 20 years of TDD experience -- yes... I started that early on). I'm pretty good at it.

The main advantage is that when you are writing code without tests, usually you sketch together a solution and then you run the app and see if it works. Sometimes it does pretty much what you want, but usually you discover some problems. You use a debugger, or you just modify the code and see what happens. Depending on the system, you often have to get out of the context of what you are doing, re-run the app, enter a whole bunch of information, etc, etc. It takes time. Debuggers that can update information on the fly are great time savers, but you still have to do a lot of contextual work.

It takes me some extra time to write tests, but running them is super quick (as long as you aren't writing bad tests). Usually I insist that I can run the relevant tests in less than 2 seconds. Ideally I like the entire suite to run in less than a minute, though convincing my peers to adhere to these numbers is often difficult. That 2 seconds is important, though. It's the amount of time it takes your brain to notice that something is taking a long time. If it's less than 2 seconds (and run whenever you save the file), usually you will barely notice it.

In that way, I've got better focus and can stay in the zone of the code, rather than repeatedly setting up my manual testing and looking at what it is doing. Overall, it's a pretty big productivity improvement for me. YMMV.

[andrewflnr]

I really like the idea of tests as materialized debugging sessions.