[rty32]

> The other side is those people who do not find those kind of bugs annoying

Anecdotally, I find these are the same people who work less effectively and efficiently. At my company, I know people who mainly use Notepad++ for editing code when VSCode (or another IDE) is readily available, who use print over debuggers, who don't get frustrated by runtime errors that could be caught in IDEs, and who opt out of using coding assistants. I happen to know as a matter of fact that the person who codes in Notepad++ frequently has trivial errors, and generally these people don't push code out as fast they could.

And they don't care to change the way they work even after seeing the alternatives and knowing they are objectively more efficient.

I am not their managers, so I say to myself "this is none of my business" and move on. I do feel pity for them.

[lblume]

Well, using print over debuggers is fairly common in Rust and other languages with strong type systems because most bugs are, due to the extreme lengths the compiler goes to to able to detect them even before running the program, just lacks of information of the value of an expression at a single point in the program flow, which is where dbg! shines. I agree with all the other points though.

Anecdotally, I was just writing a generic BPE implementation, and spend a few hours tracking down a bug. I used debug statements to look at the values of expressions, and noticed that something was off. Only later did I figure out that I modified a value, but used the old copy — a simple logic error that #[must_use] could have prevented. cargo clippy -W pedantic is annoying, but this taught be I better listen to what it has to say.

[rty32]

I didn't say print is bad. There is a ton of problems where debuggers alone are not enough and print is required. I meant choosing print when the debugger is readily available and allows developers to get what they need without constantly changing the code to insert "print" and recompile/rerun the code.

[otherme123]

>these people don't push code out as fast they could.

Well, one of my coworkers pushes code quite fast, and also he is the one who get rejected more often because he keep adding .tmp, .pyc and even .env files to his commits. I guess "git add asterisk" is faster, and thus more efficient, than adding files slowly or taking time to edit gitignore.

Not so long ago I read a history here in HN about a guy that first coded in his head, then wrote everything in paper, and finally coded in a computer. It compiled without errors. Slow pusher? Inefficient?

[dataflow]

> Not so long ago I read a history here in HN about a guy that first coded in his head, then wrote everything in paper, and finally coded in a computer. It compiled without errors. Slow pusher? Inefficient?

I've read and heard stories about these folks too, apparently this was more common decades ago.

To be clear, I don't think I could pull it off with any language. It's quite impressive and admirable to get things right on the first try.

Having said that, the thing is, languages were a lot simpler back then too. I'm not convinced this is realistically even possible with today's languages unless you constrain yourself to some overly restrictive subset. Like try this with C++, and I would be shocked if you can write nontrivial programs without getting compiler errors. Like to give a trivial example, every time I write my own iterator class for a container, I miss something when I hit compile: like either a comparison operator, or subtraction, or conversion to const iterator, or post-decrement, or subscript, or some member typedef. Or try it with python, and I bet you'll call .get() on something and then forget to check for null somewhere.

I would love to be proven wrong though. If anyone knows of someone who does this with a modern language, please share.

[pmontra]

They invented .gitignore to prevent those files to get checked in into the repository.

Head, paper, keyboard is what we did in the 80s when compilers were too slow to afford throwing code at them and fix the errors later. Was that code in the HN story a substantial piece of code or some 100 lines program? Our programs used to be small.

[otherme123]

.gitignore doesn't prevent you from committing unwanted files if a pattern is missing. This is a real example: .gitignore had ".sqlite3" extension ignored, but this coworker created a test database as ".dbsq3" or something like that for some reason. He forgot to add the pattern to .gitignore and the file was commited.

Also you can have .env in the .gitignore, yet someone create their file as .env.local and escape the .gitignore pattern. It's easy to come after and lecturing about creating a better .gitignore pattern, but it's even easier to at the very least take a little care of your commits even if it means slower speeds.

[rty32]

I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if people used paper or anything. They can do whatever they want, as long as their they can commit code to the source control with high quality.