[enriquto]

My point is that the debugger may help you understand the bug, but does not remove it. A better name for the tool would be something like bugfinder, or steprunner.

> You don't click it, even out of desperation at any point in your career?

I think I've never used an IDE since the (good) times of borland C++.

> I get really tired and demotivated working with people who are like that

You would probably hate working with me then... sorry about that.

[willcipriano]

Whatever works for you man, but if you spend two plus weeks on a bug in a if statement that would've been obvious at a first glance with a debugger, I'm not going to feel like we are contributing at the same level. It's like we are tasked with digging a ditch together and you want to use a tea spoon instead of a shovel.

[foxfluff]

> a bug in a if statement that would've been obvious at a first glance with a debugger

If you already knew which if statement to look at, it's irrelevant whether you use a debugger or printf().

Actually, it becomes even less relevant when you have thousands of dynamically allocated objects running the same statement but only one of them goes wonky and you only know which one it is later at runtime. In the end you end up doing the same logging and tracing with the debugger that you can do with a printf().

[willcipriano]

> If you already knew which if statement to look at, it's irrelevant whether you use a debugger or printf().

That's exactly when it matters, when you don't know where the problem is. You have a big ball of spaghetti business logic and a customer object that is passing through it. At some point the customers total balance is screwed up. You can:

- Read a lot of code and guess where that happens and set a printf or two, if you find it great, if not read more and set more printf's

- Set a watcher on the customers total, and review the logic each place it is modified and ensure it is correct before moving on

The first way you have to build the project over and over again, and you might miss something. The second way guarantees you find the problem eventually, and you only end up building a few times. If we have a project with a 5 minute build time, and a really thorny problem this can be a massive difference.

That isn't to mention the value of doing this in concert with the creation of a unit test that recreates the bug to further reduce the bugfix feedback loop.

[foxfluff]

Somehow we went from obvious at first glance to .. trace a variable and you find the problem eventually?

Now the question is, how do you tell from the trace that the total is wrong? If you can write a function to check it in the debugger, you probably can -- with roughly the same effort -- write an assert() or (asserts) in the program where that variable is modified, and that'll ensure you'll be immediately notified the next time it goes wrong even before anyone notices let alone has time to dig out a debugger. I'd say the value of creating asserts is up there with unit tests.

You can object that actually the problem is in the complicated business logic and is already gone by when the assert fires and the wrong value is finally assigned/updated to the variable, but that same problem would come up in a debugger too. At one point your debugger notices that whoops it's gone wrong, but you don't know how exactly how you got there? Like I said in another thread here, things like rr can really change debugging (allowing you to rewind time, sort of) when they become available to your platform & language, but until then, I just don't find very compelling arguments why inspecting bad state in business logic would be so much faster in a debugger than with printfs. I find debuggers useful mainly for some niche things (ok, which NULL or freed pointer did I dereference and segfault on?).

Now if you have to make an argument about performance, go ahead, but that's kind of orthogonal and it goes both ways. Some programs run too damn slow under a debugger, sometimes you have to make a separate build with debugging info and different build options (again possibly with a massive performance impact) and figure out how to use all that in conjunction with the target system that only has a few dozen megabytes of spare RAM.. if running a debugger requires none of that but builds are slow for you, go for it.

[whizzter]

That's exactly when a GOOD debugger becomes useful, if you can get an hint at what's wrong you can often (if needed and the fault wasn't caught by the debugger) put in a good conditional expression for the breakpoint and only break once it fails, yet if every input looks fine and your code isn't a mutating mess you can set a previous line as the next statement and re-step what happened to create the error condition for the particular object.

Adding traces (probably over several iterations to narrow down things), rebuilding, rerunning and inspecting those traces would've probably taken multiples of the time to build and run everything up to the point of failure.

[cxr]

I can appreciate the teaspoon/shovel metaphor, which I've gotten a lot of mileage from myself—not necessarily always related to programming—but "a bug in a if statement that would've been obvious at a first glance with a debugger" does not reflect how debuggers actually work.

Signed,

Someone who actually likes debuggers but doesn't see you making a solid case for them at all.

[_n_b_]

I suspect GP was referring to a situation where you’re stepping though some problem code and see that you end up in the wrong clause or an IF statement?

Agree that’s not the first use case I’d think of, but I do think debuggers can quickly pinpoint that kind of thing as you step through code… if you know roughly where the problem is.