[Sadly, this seems to be one of those times when snippage is likely to be
misinterpreted. Hence, no snippage.]
Nick Keighley said:
On 1 Aug, 00:54, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam. invalidwrote:
>On 31 Jul 2008 at 6:45, Chris Dollin wrote:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>Fact is, *noone* has claimed to be able to debug code using only a
debugger and not seeing the source code. *You* on the other hand (and
many of your lackeys and lickspittles) have claimed on many occasions
that you can debug any problem using only a printout of the source
code and never a debugger.
Cite three instances that fit this claim.
Happily. In fact, here are five.
In fact, none of the five quotes fit the claim.
the key sentence in your quote is:
"You [Richard Heathfield] [...] have claimed on many occasions that
you can
debug any problem using ONLY a printout of the source code and NEVER
a
debugger"
I do not believe my elision or change in emphasis has distorted
what you say. The original is still available above.
And I have left it in place.
1. RCH never said he nver used a debugger
Right. It is my first port of call if a program segfaults, because it's the
fastest way to find out (assuming I don't already know!) where the symptom
is manifested. Often, from there it's pretty obvious what's gone wrong.
Furthermore, I used to make heavy use of debuggers. I didn't stop because
I became a "superhero" (as if!). I stopped because I found faster, more
effective ways to debug. That doesn't mean I *won't* use a debugger. I'm
perfectly prepared to do that if I think it worthwhile - and, on occasion,
it is; just not very often, that's all.
2. none of the quotes below claim to only use a printout.
Many use diagnostics.
None of the quotes below claim to use *even* a printout. I certainly
haven't said that I use printouts. I used to, yes - I suppose many of us
did, and perhaps some still do. But again, there are faster ways to debug
than to wait for the code base to meet the dead tree.
So you have made two untrue statements. Since you have done
this repeatedly this makes you a liar.
I'm not actually sure that he's a liar. I think he's just stupid. But of
course I could be wrong about that. Why do I think he's stupid? Well, he
can't read with understanding, he doesn't appear to comprehend the
futility of micro-optimisation, he doesn't understand the purpose of a
newsgroup for discussing C despite having been told many times, and he
doesn't have the ability to deal rationally with opposing arguments,
instead resorting to invective and mockery. But perhaps you're right -
maybe he's a liar too.
>Malcolm Maclean, <XqGdnSZI96q0oH 3anZ2dneKdnZydn ...@bt.com>
My view on this is that the debugger creates a very intimate
relationship with the programmer. When I first learnt C I used one.
The run / debug cycle becomes a natural way of working. Then In my
first job I got a Unix box and suddenly the debugger was taken away.
Then I got another one for a games console, but it wasn't well
designed. I decided at that point that even a good debugger was too
seductive. So now I use diagnostics almost exclusively.
No mention of printouts here.
>>
Bartc, <MPDCj.23573$XI .16...@text.new s.virginmedia.c om>
I've never used debuggers either, for either hardware or software.
Tracking down an elusive bug is more like a sport; a proper debugger
would spoil the fun.
No mention of printouts here.
>>
Ian Collins, <63tdlsF29bcn.. .@mid.individua l.net>
As I've said here before, spend some time (at least a year) working in
a language without a debugger, you will very quickly adapt to life
without it.
No mention of printouts here.
>>
Ed Prochik,
<50ecfc19-f365-406a-a19e-14a44995c...@e3 9g2000hsf.googl egroups.com>
>1500-2000 lines is the maximum the brain can handle.
So then keep you code size below that limit and you will not need the
debugger.
No mention of printouts here.
>>
And the Prince Of Lies himself, Richard Heath Field,
A nice demonstration of begging the question (in the proper sense), and of
the inability to get people's names right. The above error is one he has
made before, and he was called on it then, so he has demonstrated, too,
that he has learning difficulties. (I strongly suspect that he can't even
get his own name right. Maybe he really is called Antoninus Twink, but
somehow I doubt it.)
><mqidnVWaxKTFD kTanZ2dnUVZ8sao n...@bt.com>
I have certainly debugged what you consider to be impossibly large
code bases without using a debugger.
>nobody believes this "I can debug without a debugger" stuff.
...except those who've done it, of course, which seems to be most of
us.
No mention of printouts here.
>>
Once again, I call bullshit on Heathfield's
Ah! Look at that! He *can* get my name right - if he tries!
>claims to be a superhero.
I have never claimed to be a superhero, and Mr Twink's apparent belief that
I have done so merely highlights the fact that he lives in some kind of
fantasy world. I don't (mostly) ignore debuggers because of any great
claim of skill - I ignore them because they're not the most effective way
for me to solve most of my debugging problems. That's common sense, not
superheroism.
>We've all seen Heathfield
And again!
>spew out lie after lie to undermine Jacob and
try to destroy his reputation.
Mr Twink seems to be making the mistake of believing his own propaganda. I
am not trying to undermine Jacob Navia or to destroy his reputation. He is
perfectly capable of doing that all by himself. I do, however,
occasionally point out errors in his articles, and it is true that I have
sometimes asked him to stop plugging his product in comp.lang.c, since it
is a technical group about the C language, not a commercial group about
implementations .
>It's no surprise that he tries to blacken
the "trolls" who've got the measure of him with the same sort of slurs.
People who can't understand what they read are bound to jump to false
conclusions on occasion, but Mr Twink seems to jump from one false
conclusion to another with the agility of a mountain goat.
>Heathfield
Well, he managed to get my name right three times out of four. I suppose I
should be grateful for small mercies.
>is a liar, morning, noon and night.
At least that leaves my afternoons free.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
