As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Opinion-based Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
There's a lot of homework questions here on SO.
I would guess that 90%+ can be solved by stepping through the code in a debugger, and observing program/variable state.
I was never taught to use a debugger. I simply printed and read the GDB manual and stepped through their examples. When I used Visual Studio for the first time, I remembered thinking, Wow! how much simpler can this be, click to set a breakpoint, mouse over a variable for the value, press a key to step, the immediate window, debug.print, etc...
At any rate, are students "taught" to use a debugger? If not, why not? (Perhaps a better question is, why can't they learn to use a debugger themselves... maybe they need to be told that there is such a tool that can help them...)
How long does it take to learn to use a debugger?
I don't think the problem is teaching. Using a modern graphical debugger is not rocket science (at least not for most user-mode programs running on a single computer). The problem is with the attitudes of some people. In order to use a debugger effectively, you should:
Admit it's your fault and select isn't broken.
Have the perseverance to spend a couple nights debugging, without forgetting the previous point.
There's no specific algorithm to follow. You should guess educatedly and reason effectively from what you see.
Not many non-programmers have these attitudes. At college, I have seen many friends who give up after a relatively short period of time and bring me some code and tell me the computer is doing something wrong. I usually tell them I trust their computer more than them (and this hurts some feelings, but that's the way it is).
In my high school and university, most of the people in the classes didn't really care about programming at all.
If by students you mean Computer Science students, I think the answer is fairly obvious. The subject matter for courses is generally theory, with the programming language / framework / library there as an aid. The professor can't go very far in depth on a particular tool, since it would take away from time he is teaching networking or systems or whatever. Maybe if there were a course called "Real World Programming" or something like that, they'd cover debuggers, but in general I don't see too much wrong with expecting students to read the language / tool documentation in order to accomplish the coursework.
Debuggers were introduced in my second year Intro to C course, if I recall correctly. Of course the problem most students were struggling with at that point was getting their work to compile, which a debugger will not help with. And once their ten line command line program compiles and then crashes, well, they already have some printfs right there. Fighting to master GDB is overkill.
In my experience, it's fairly rare to actually deal with a code base large enough to make more than a cursory familiarization with a debugger worth the time investment in most Comp. Sci curriculums. The programs are small and the problems you face are more along the lines of figuring out the time-space complexity of your algorithm.
Debuggers become much more valuable on real world projects, where you have a lot of code written by different people at different times to trace through to figure out what keeps frotzing foo before the call to bar().
This is a good question to ask to the faculty at your school.
At my university, they gave a very brief example of debugging, then pointed us to the "help" files and the books.
Perhaps they don't teach it because there is sooo much stuff to cover and so little time for the lecturers. The professors aren't going to hold everybody's hand.
Not entirely related, but people need to use debuggers not just for debugging but to understand working code.
I'll put in a cautionary note on the other side. I learned to program with Visual Basic and Visual C ( mid 80s ), and the debuggers were built-in and easy to use. Too easy, in fact... I generally didn't think about how to solve a problem, I just ran it in the debugger and adjusted the behavior. Oh, that variable is one too high... I must have to subtract one here!
It wasn't until I switched to Linux, with the not-quite-as-easy gcc/gdb combo, that I began to appreciate design and thinking about your code first.
I'll admit, I probably go too far the other way now. I use a debugger to analyze stack traces and that's about it. There should be a middle ground between analyzing the problem and stepping through it in a debugger. Certainly people should be shown all the tools available too them.
I was taught to use a debugger in college. Not much, late (it should be almost the second thing to teach), but they taught me.
Anyway, it's important to teach to DEBUG, not only to "use a debugger". There are situations where you can't debug with gdb (e.g. try to debug a program running 10 concurrent threads) and you need a different approach, like the old-fashioned printf.
I can certainly agree with you that usually one learn and make use of debug techniques much later that the first time you could use them.
From a practicality standpoint, most likely (due to policy or technical restrictions) you cannot use a debugger on a production application. Not using the debugger as too much of a crutch promotes adding the proper amount of logging to your application.
Because there is not text book on debugging, period.
In fact, it is very hard to create a teaching situation where get the incentive to use a debuigger. Typical assignments are too simple to really require a debugger. Greg Wilson raised that topic at last year's SUITE workshop, and consensus was it is very hard to get students to use a debugger. You can tell them about debugging, but creating situation where they will actually feel the pain of resorting to the debugger is hard.
Maybe a lecture on game cracking could motive students to step through the game with a debugger? At least, that was why I told myself how to use a debugger as a 12-year old :)
A found that there is a lot of negative attitude towards debuggers amongst academia and seasoned systems programmers. I have come up against one quite talented programmer who claimed that "Debuggers don't work, i just use log files." Fair enough, for multi-threaded server apps you must have logging, but there's no denying a debugger is useful for 99% of the code that is not multi-threaded.
In answering your question, yes debuggers should be covered in programming syllabus, but as one of the tools of debugging a program. Tracing and logging are important as well.
Having recruited at 4 universities (Rensselaer, Purdue, Ohio State, University of Washington) - students that write code for money for incubators associated with their university tend to learn the art of debugging really well because the incubation companies want people to solve problems and do it in fewer hours and invest some time to teach them to use good debugging techniques. Depending on the sophistication of the particular incubator company they might invest in mentoring patterns and performance to help the student be more productive for them but often debugging is the first investment.
Left to the traditional cs classes the students don't seem to walk away with the same set of skills that help them narrow a problem, manipulate the data while the program/service/page/site/component is running andreally understand the implications of what they've written vs. what they needed to write to make it right.
I went to Rensselaer and I 'learned on my own' because I was paid flat rate for some projects and I wanted to minimize my own time spent on programming - and it was further enforced by working as an intern #Microsoft in 1994 where I got to see how useful an Integrated Dev Environment really was.
Wagering a hypothesis based on my experience as a TA and aspiring CS prof:
It would actually confuse the kids who have little to no programming experience more than it would help.
Now first of all: I completely agree that teaching how to use a debugger would be a great thing, but I think the barrier to doing so stems from the greater, systematic problem that software engineering and computer science are not separate majors. Most CS programs will require 2-4 classes where learning to code is the focus. After these, coding ability is required but not the topic of the class.
To my main point: It's very hard to teach something using the guise of "you don't get this now but do it because it'll be useful later." You can try, but I don't think it really works. This as an extension of the idea that people only really learn from doing. Going through the motions but not understanding why is not the same as doing.
I think kids learning to code for the first time aren't going to understand why using a debugger is more effective than inserting print lines. Think about a small to medium sized script you code: would you use the debugger barring odd behavior or some bug you couldn't work out quickly? I wouldn't, seems like it would just slow me down. But, when it comes to maintaining the huge project I work on every day, the debugger is invaluable beyond a doubt. By the time students get to the portion of the curriculum that requires big projects, they're not in a class that focuses on general coding anymore.
And all of this brings me to my awesome idea I think every CS prof should do when teaching how to code: instead of exclusively asking for projects from the kids, every now and then give them a big piece of complex code and ask them to fix the bugs. This would teach them how to use a debugger
In high school we were taught to debug by writing stuff out to the console.
In college, we were taught a mix of that plus using a debugger.
The tools have only gotten easier to use, so I am really not sure why it is not taught.
I was taught in my first CS class how to use a debugger. It didn't do me much good to be setting breakpoints and stepping through my code when most of what I wrote was "Hello World!". I pretty much ignored the debugger from that point on until I learned to use GDB in a much more advanced course while working on a "binary bomb" homework assignment.
Since I've been out of school and working I've spent a lot more time using a debugger and learning how useful it can be. I would say that learning to use a debugger includes three things - a need for one, being taught/learning how to use one, and experience knowing how to use one to your advantage.
Also, spending some time learning "echo debugging" can be worthwhile for those situations when a debugger isn't available/necessary. That's just my $0.02.
There are more than a few questions here, to my mind. Here's a few that are asked and a few that I'd infer:
I was taught in BASIC and Pascal initially, usually with an interpreter that made it easier to run the program till something blew up. We didn't have breakpoints or many of the fancy things there are now for tracing through code, though this would have been from 1983-1994 using a Commodore 64, Watcom BASIC, and Pascal on a Mac.
Even in my later university years, we didn't have a debugger. If our code didn't work, we had print statements or do manual tracing, in terms of time this would have been 1995-1997.
One cavaet with a debugger is that for something like Visual Studio, do you have any idea how long it could take to go through every feature it has for debugging? That could take years in some cases I think. This is without getting into all the build options and other things that it can do that one might use eventually. Another point is that for all the good things that a debugger gives, there is something to be said for how complex things can get,e.g. using a breakpoint in VS there is the call stack, local variables, watch windows, memory, disassembly and other things that one could want to examine while execution is halted.
The basics of using a debugger could be learned in a week or so, I think. However, to get to the point of mastering what a debugger does, how much goes on when code is executing as well as where it is executing as there are multiple places where things can run these days like GPUs to go along with the CPU, would take a lot longer and I'd question how many people have that kind of drive, even in school.
You're question is kind of similar to, "Why aren't students taught software testing"? I'm sure the do in some places, but typically Universities/Colleges stick to teaching the 'interesting' theoretical computer science stuff, and tend not to teach the practical tools. Like how if you're taking English in school they teach you how to write, not how to use MS Word (yea I'm sure there are some Word courses, but you get my point).
I wasn't taught to use a debugger in my undergraduate degree, because you cannot use a debugger on a deck of punch cards. Even print statements are a luxury if you have a 15 minute turnaround on "jobs", etcetera.
I'm not saying that people should not be taught to use debuggers. Just that it is also important to learn to debug without this aid, because:
it will help you understand your code better if you don't have to rely on a debugger, and
there are situations where a sophisticated debugger won't be available.
On the latter point, I can also remember debugging a boot prom on an embedded device using a (rather expensive) logic analyzer to capture what was happening on the address / data lines.
The same reason students aren't taught version control, or unit testing, or shell scripting, or text editing, or documentation writing, or even (beyond intro courses) programming languages. The class is about computer science, usually a single concept or family of concepts, not programming. You're expected to learn what you need.
This isn't unique to computer science. My chemistry classes (I also have a chemistry degree) didn't teach me how to use any chemistry lab equipment, either. You learned that by hanging around in the lab and watching other students and asking the grizzled old profs who hung out there.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
So there are a lot of posts around here about what are the best ways to teach kids to program. I'm interested in the next step, teaching kids how to debug code that doesn't do what they want, or doesn't always work 100% of the time (I believe these are separate problems, but that could be subjective).
I ask from the point of view of a game developer who already has a working game (ROBLOX) where kids can code up a ton of crazy stuff in our embedded scripting language, which happens to be Lua.
What we are seeing is that as these scripts become more complicated they are suffering from edge cases that the kids didn't consider - ultimately limiting the scope of what they can do. Part of the solution is education and part of the solution is better debugging tools. Thus I ask a two part question:
What high quality, freely available sources of information exist on the internet that we can send aspiring script developers to with any expectation that they would get something valuable out of it? Maybe there aren't any and we need to write some?
What debugging tools do you think would be most useful to kids? I want to hit the payoff vs. complexity sweet spot.
Our target demographic here is motivated kids, mostly 12-15 years old.
IMHO: Never mind tools. Talk them through it. Teach problem-solving skills. And just as importantly, teach testing.
Well for the debugging part, my guess would be three things:
Avoid bugs in the first place by teaching them good programming practice
Test each part with eg. unit-testing (Lunit)
use print() enough for seeing what happens
you might be interested in debugger.lua or Remdebug
Use a decent editor with syntax highlighting, bracket matching, ...
For the general information:
Learning Lua on the Lua-users wiki
The Lua reference manual
Programming in Lua
That's the way I learned using Lua anyway :).
Of course, early start always helps. In the early years, brains aren’t wired to one particular language like in adulthood. http://blog.quib.ly/2012/10/30/can-kids-beat-adults-at-coding/
I don't know about the "sources of information" part. It looks a bit too generic to me. I learned about edge cases with painful experience, and don't know any other means. I'm not sure it is a kind of knowledge that can be taught formally. It's more like an intuitive thing to me. Kind of like swimming: in order to learn, you have to get wet.
But regarding payoff-vs-complexity part, I'd say that nothing beats the good old console + print duet. It might not be as fancy as other debugging means, but its complexity asymptotically approaches 0. And it's something they will be able to use in nearly any environment and any language they encounter in the future (unless something really big happens).
If you have iPad, now there's a nice app that lets you write programs/games/simulations and run it directly from your iPad. The language is Lua.
http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/
I would use Netbeans after stripping it down a bit. It has some very nice code hinting and comprehensible error checking and hinting.
Kids can have restricted access to tools like debuggers as an individual may not be registered as a programmer or (game) software developer in the state or at the national level. Lua can be run in debug or trace mode and there is something to be gained by reading through the program script or code and using a pen and paper with test input values to note the variables and their contents with logic jumps separately noted with any return expectation and assess the output data values created at relevant points. This is sometimes called dryrunning and is used normally prior to first full test in the development process. This can help in coping with sometimes complex logic progress and with stack element contents written from bottom to top or from left to right on the paper.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Am I a lazy developer?
Is it being lazy to use automated tools, such as code generators and such?
Now, I could, if I had to, create all the data layers and entities I needed, but I choose to use CodeSmith to generate my datalayers and entities.
I also use Resharper and I would say it fights with MSDeploy as to which gets installed first after Visual Studio.
Again if I had to, I could code without it, but prefer not to.
Both these tools from my point of view are no brainers as they improve output massively.
But is this lazy?
I'm sure there are purists out there that would say everything should be wirtten by you so you know what everything is doing, but if you can read through the code and see what is happening is that ok?
So am I being lazy or am I just using all the cards in my hand?
In programmers, laziness is a virtue, so don't worry.
It's only lazy if you use a tool to produce code and use it as-is without verifying that the code meets your needs and abides by your standards.
You don'nt need to reinvent the wheel n times, this is done often enough. Briefly I'd state that using tools like the ones you mentioned (within reason) is absolutely no problem...
For you? No, you're not being lazy.
For the guy that doesn't understand what code generators are doing and how they do it? Yes, it's being lazy.
That's the important distinction: You have to know what you gain and know what you're missing by using a code generator. If you don't, it's only a matter of time before you come across a case where you have to be able to produce those classes and not know how.
Both these tools from my point of view are no brainers as they improve output massively.
This means you're not being lazy, you are using the appropriate tools to enable you to concentrate on the important aspects of the job.
It's not being lazy - it's being smart. There's nothing wrong with using every tool at your disposal...as long as it makes you more productive. Using tools for the sake of using tools is a bad idea.
However, if you don't know what your tool is doing under the hood, you should learn about it so if you don't have the tool available for some reason, you can get the job done.
I think that's the wrong question. Laziness is a virtue. I've seen too many programmers who do things the hard way rather than sitting back and thinking for a few minutes to come up with an easier way. I've had so many times that I've said to a junior programmer something to the effect of, "Yes, I respect your diligence in working through lunch and staying late to write the code to do X, but if you'd taken a few minutes to check the documentation you might have seen that there is already a function in the library that does that". Or similar stories.
I'm not familiar with the specific tools you describe, but to me, the question always is, Does this tool actually save me any work? I've tried plenty of "code generators" that basically just create code stubs. So gee, thanks, you wrote the "function x(int, float)", now all I have to to is fill in the actual parameter names and write the code. What did that save me? I've also seen plenty of code generators that write really awful code. So now I have to try to add the "custom" code to this jumbled mess. Wouldn't it have been easier to just write the whole thing cleanly the first time? I've seen plenty of productivity tools where I found it takes me more time to set up the parameters to run the tool than I actually saved by using it. (Like the old joke that it's been proven that jogging regularly really does make you live longer: for every 60 minutes you spend jogging, it adds 30 minutes to your life.) Some tools may produce code or data structures or whatever that is difficult to maintain, so you save an hour today but it costs you ten hours in maintenance over the life of the project. Etc.
My conclusion isn't that you shouldn't use productivity tools, but rather that you should make sure they really are increasing your productivity, and not just giving an illusion of doing so. If in your case you find these tools really do help you, then using them is not "cheating", it's simply smart.
As everyone else already pointed out there's nothing wrong in your use of code generators.
Still I can see downsides and reasons to avoid it in certain particular sitations.
choice of language. Sometimes the very same fact you need a code generator to get your coding started could imply you're using the wrong language for the task. Most times language cannot really be chosen, so code generators remain the best way to go.
code redundancy. Depending on the actual generators used, generated code could be redundant, if this happens and generation happens once, isn't automated, and generated code goes into the main repository maintenance problems could arise in the long run. Not really a problem with code generation itself, but with the way it should and should not be used.
adding development platforms requirements. We have to concede many programmmers out there work on bread-toasters doubling as PCs. It's really a bad, (and sad) reality of cheap business practices meeting sharp minds. (sharp minds go to waste in the process) It could become a concern if our project (which could have a port in store for the future, and in an external facility either) needs an hefty, ram hogging, not enough cross platform, IDE handy to compile every little modification.
So, no definitive answer on code generating lazyness and programmming: it depends. Then again, using the wrong tools for the job is bad for your health, (and business) so... don't.
You're using all the cards in your hand. Why reinvent the wheel when there are tools available to make your job easier. Bear in mind these tools DON'T do your job, they only assist.
What you create is down to you, so using the tools is not lazy... it's just intelligent.
I'd say you're more efficient rather than lazy.
Programming is primarily a thinking exercise not a typing one. So long as you understand what the tools are doing you're shifting the balance away from typing to thinking. Doing more of what your job is about? Doesn't sound like lazy to me!
I'm sure there are purists out there that would say everything should be wirtten by you so you know what everything is doing
This might have been a viable point of view during the early days of programming. But nowadays, this is simply not feasible (or even preferable). After all, you've already obscured a certain level of understanding just by using a high-level language.
That said, I've found it to be a great learning exercise to write some of these things by hand occasionally. Not only do you get to learn more, but they teach you how helpful these tools really are (or aren't). Note that I'd only do this on a personal project though. I wouldn't do this for any project someone was paying me for (unless I were working for a masochist or something).
Ask yourself why there are so many ORM and other code-generation tools around. I'd say go for it with the proviso that you leave it maintainable for the next guy/gal.
Programming is about being lazy, about automating repetitive tasks. If you can't do that inside your language, using code generators and similar things is a useful workaround.
It depends on what you're writing, of course. I am suprised nobody's brought this up. If you're writing device drivers, operating systems, protocols, or server software (web servers, tcp driven servers, etc), you should probably do it by hand.
But with what I do and probably what a lot of us do is implement business processes in code for web pages or web services. And in those areas, if you can improve on your code with code generators, go for it.
Yes you are being a lazy developer, be honest to yourself, if you take the time to do it the hard way you can call yourself less lazy than you are now.
The point is, being lazy isn't inefficient at all.
Lazy people take time to look at the problems from different direction before acting upon it, this avoids unnecessary errors which saves you valuable time.
So you're being lazy, but that's ok. People don't hire hyperactive coders that make 10 applications each day but leave a trail of bugs on their path. bug-fixing costs time, time is money.
conclusion:
Laziness = profit
Go for it.
I think the best developers are also the laziest. Basically, all you're doing should be focused on getting the end result with the least amount of work. This often provides the best result and also avoids developers from being distracted by fun things to include in a project. A lazy developer would e.g. never add an easter egg to his code, simply because this would be more code, which could introduce more bugs that need to be fixed later on. Adding code is bad, since you'd also add more bugs that you need to resolve later. Still, you will need to add code, else you won't get paid. So, as a lazy developer you would of course choose for the most optimized code, the best-tested code which would almost never fail and you'd work in a way that the chance of errors is reduced to a minimum.
Do keep in mind that lazy developers should focus on avoiding work in the future, not on avoiding work right now! So stop reading here and get back to work! ;-)
Laziness is a trait that most good programmers have. Unless they work for Adobe, in which case they are often lazy in a bad way.
I'm "just" a hobbyist programmer, but I find that as my programs get longer and longer the bugs get more annoying--and harder to track. Just when everything seems to be running smoothly, some new problem will appear, seemingly spontaneously. It may take me a long time to figure out what caused the problem. Other times I'll add a line of code, and it'll break something in another unit. This can get kind of frustrating if I thought everything was working well.
Is this common to everyone, or is it more of a newbie kind of thing? I hear about "unit testing," "design frameworks," and various other concepts that sound like they would decrease bugginess, make my apps "robust," and everything easy to understand at a glance :)
So, how big a deal are bugs to people with professional training?
Thanks -- Al C.
The problem of "make a fix, cause a problem elsewhere" is very well known, and is indeed one of the primary motivations behind unit testing.
The idea is that if you write exhaustive tests for each small part of your system independently, and run them on the entire system every time you make a change anywhere, you will see the problem immediately. The main benefit, however, is that in the process of building these tests you'll also be improving your code to have less dependencies.
The typical solution to these sort of problems is to reduce coupling; make different parts less dependent on one another. More experienced developers sometimes have habits or design skills to build systems in this manner. For example, we use interfaces and implementations rather than classes; we use model-view-controller for user interfaces, etc. In addition, we can use tools that help further reduce dependencies, like "Dependency injection" and aspect oriented programming.
All programmers make mistakes. Good and experienced programmers build their programs so that it is easier to find the mistakes and restrict their effects.
And it is a big deal for everyone. Most companies spend more time on maintenance than on writing new code.
Are you automating your tests? If you do not, you're signing up creating bugs without finding them.
Are you adding tests for bugs as you fix them? If you do not, you are signing up for creating the same bugs over and over.
Are you writing unit tests? If not, you are signing up for long debugging sessions when a test fails.
Are you writing your unit tests first? If not, your unit tests will be hard to write when your units are tightly coupled.
Are you refactoring mercilessly? If not, every edit will become more difficult and more likely to introduce bugs. (But make sure you have good tests, first.)
When you fix a bug, are you fixing the entire class? Don't just fix the bug; don't just fix similar bugs throughout your code; change the game so you can never create that kind of bug again.
Bugs are a big deal to everyone. I've always found that the more I program, the more I learn about programming in general. I cringe at the code I wrote a few years back!! I started out as a hobbyist and liked it so much that I went to engineering college to get a Computer Science Engineering major (I am in my final semester). These are the things that I have learned :
I take time to actually design what I am going to write and document the design. It really eliminates a lot of problems down the line. Whether the design is as simple as writing down a few points on what I am going to write or full blown UML modeling (:( ) doesn't matter. Its the clarity of thought and purpose and having material to look back at when I come back to the code after a while that matter the most.
No matter what language I write in, keeping my code simple and readable is important. I think that it is extremely important not to over complicate the code and at the same time not to over simplify it. (Hard learned lesson!!)
Efficiency optimizations and fancy tricks should be applied at the end, only when necessary and only if they are needed. Another thing is that I apply them only If I really know what I am doing and I always test my code!
Learning language dependant details helps me keep my code bug free. For instance I learned that scanf() is evil in C!
Others have already commented on the zen of writing tests. I would like to add that you should always do regression tests. (i.e. Write new code, test all parts of your code to see if it breaks)
Keeping a mental picture of code is hard at times, so I always document my code.
I use methods to make sure that there is a bare minimum dependence between different parts of my code. Interfaces, class hierarchies etc. (Decoupled design)
Thinking before I code and being disciplined in whatever I write is another crucial skill. I know people who don't format their code so its readable (Shudder!).
Reading other peoples source to learn best practices is good. Making my own list is better!. When working in a team, there must be a common set of them.
Don't be paralyzed by analysis. Write tests, then code, then execute and test. Rinse wash repeat!
Learning to read over my own code and combing it for mistakes is important. Improving my arsenal of debugging skills was a great investment. I keep them sharp by helping my classmates fix bugs regularly.
When there is a bug in my code, I assume its my mistake, not the computers and work from there. That is a state of mind that really helps me.
A fresh pair of eyes aids in debugging. Programmers tend to miss even the most obvious errors in their own code when exhausted. Having someone to show your code to is great.
having someone to throw ideas at and not be judged is important. I talk to my mom (who is not a programmer) , throw ideas at her and find solutions. She helps me bounce my ideas back and forth and refine them. If she is unavailable, I talk to my pet cat.
I am not so be discouraged by bugs anymore. I've learned to love removing bugs almost as much as programming.
Using version control has really helped me manage different ideas I get while coding. That helps reduce errors. I recommend using git or any other version control system you might like.
As Jay Bazzuzi said - Refactor code. I just added this point after reading his answer, to keep my list complete. All credit goes to him.
Try to write reusable code. Reuse code, both yours and from libraries. Using libraries which are bug free to do some common tasks really reduces bugs (sometimes).
I think the following quote says it best - "If debugging is the art of removing bugs, programming must be the art of putting them in."
No offense to anyone who disagrees. I hope this answer helps.
Note
As others Peter has pointed out, use Object Oriented Programming if you are writing a large amount of code. There is a limit to code length after which it becomes harder and harder to manage if written procedurally. I like procedural for smaller stuff, like playing with algorithms.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works. ~Alan J. Perlis
The only way for errors to occur in a program is by being put there by the author. No other mechanisms are known. Programs can't acquire bugs by sitting around with other buggy programs. ~Harlan Mills
Obviously, bugs are a big deal to any programmer. Just look through the list of questions on Stack Overflow to see this illustrated.
The difference between a hobbyist and an experienced professional is that the pro will be able to use his experience to code in a more "defensive" way, avoiding many types of bugs in the first place.
All the other answers are great. I'll add two things.
Source control is mandatory. I'm assuming you're on windows here. VisualSVN Server is free and maybe 4 clicks to install. TortoiseSVN is also free and it integrates into Windows Explorer, getting around the VS Express limitations of no add-ins. If you create too many bugs, you can revert your code and start over. Without source control, this is next to impossible. Plus you can sync your code if you have a laptop and a desktop.
People are going to recommend many techniques like unit testing, mocking, Inversion of Control, Test Driven Development, etc. These are great practices, but don't try to cram it all into your head too quickly. You have to write code to get better at writing code, so work these techniques slowly into your code writing. You have to crawl before you walk and walk before you can run.
Best of luck in your coding adventures!
This is a common newbie thing. As you get more experience, of course, you'll still have bugs, but they'll be easier to find and fix because you'll learn how to make your code more modular (so that changing one thing doesn't have ripple effects everywhere else), how to test it, and how to structure it to fail fast, close to the source of the problem, rather than in some arbitrary place. One very basic but useful thing that doesn't require complex infrastructure to implement is to check the inputs to all functions that have non-trivial precondtions with asserts. This has saved me several times in cases where I would have otherwise gotten weird segfaults and arbitrary behavior that would have been near impossible to debug.
If bugs weren't a problem then I'd be able to write a 100,000 line program in 10 minutes!
Your question is like, "As an amateur doctor, I worry about my patients' health: sometimes when I'm not careful enough, they sicken. Is patients' health a problem for you professional doctors too?"
Yes: it's the central problem, even the only problem (for any sufficiently all-inclusive definition of 'bug').
Bugs are common to everyone -- professional or not.
The larger and more distributed the project, the more careful one must be. One look at any open source bug database (ex: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ ) will confirm this for you.
The software industry has evolved various programming styles and standards, which when used right, make wrong code easier to spot or limited in its impact.
Therefore, training has a very positive on code quality... But at the end of the day, bugs still sneak through.
If you're just a hobbyist programmer, learning full bore TDD and OOP may involve more time than you're willing to put in. So, going on the assumption that you don't want to put in the time on them, a few easily digestible suggestions to cut down on bugs are:
Keep each function doing one thing. Be suspect of a function more than, say, 10 lines long. If you think you can break it into two functions, you probably should. Something that will help you control this is naming your functions according to exactly what they are doing. If you find that your names are long and unwieldy then you function is probably doing too many things.
Turn magic strings into constants. That is, instead of using:
people["mom"]
use instead
var mom = "mom";
people[mom]
Design your functions to either do something (command) or get something (query), but not both.
An extremely short and digestible take on OOP is here http://www.holub.com/publications/notes_and_slides/Everything.You.Know.is.Wrong.pdf. If you get this, you've got the gist of OOP and are quite frankly ahead of a lot of professional programmers.
The prevailing wisdom seems to be that the average programmer creates 12 bugs per 1000 lines of code - depends on who you ask for the exact number, but it's always per lines of code - so, the bigger the program, the more the bugs.
Subpar programmers tend to create way more bugs.
Newbies are often trapped by idiosyncrasies of the language, and lacking experience tends towards more bugs too. As you go on, you will get better, but never will you create bug-free code... well I still have bugs, even after 30 years, but that could be just me.
Nasty bugs happen to everyone from pros to hobbyists. Really good programmers get asked to track down really nasty bugs. It's part of the job. You'll know you've made it as a software developer when you stare at a nasty bug for two days and in frustration you shout, "Who wrote this crap!?!?" ... only to realize it was you. :-)
Part of the skill of a software developer is the ability to keep a large set of interrelated items straight in his/her head. It sounds like you're discovering what happens when your mental model of the system breaks down. With practice you will learn to design software that doesn't feel so brittle. There are tons of books, blogs, etc. out there on the subject of software design. And Stack Overflow of course for specific questions.
All that said, here's a couple of things you can do:
A good debugger is invaluable. Often you have to step through your code line by line to figure out what went wrong.
Use a garbage-collected language such as Python or Java if it makes sense for your project. GC will help you focus on making things work instead of getting bogged down by maddening memory errors.
If you write C++, learn to love RAII.
Write LOTS of code. Software is somewhat of an art form. Lots of practice will make you better at it.
Welcome to Stack Overflow!
What really changed my odds against code complexity and bugs was using a coding standart - how to place brackets an so on. It may seem like just boring and useless thing but it really unifies all the code and makes it much easier to read and maintain. So do you use a coding standart?
If you're not well organized, your codebase will become your very own Zebra Puzzle. Adding more code is like adding more people/animals/houses to your puzzle, and soon you have 150 various animals, people, houses and cigarette brands in your puzzle and you realize that it just took you a week to add 3 lines of code because everything is so inter-related that it takes forever to make sure the code still executes how you want it to.
The most popular organizational paradigm seems to be Object Oriented Programming, if you can break your logic down into small units which can be constructed and used independently of each other, then you will find bugs far less painful when they occur.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've had several false starts in the past with teaching myself how to program. I've worked through several books (mostly C and Python), and end up just learning the syntax without feeling as though I could sit down and actually write a program for myself. When I try to look through the source trees of a project on Codeplex or Sourceforge, I never seem to know where to start reading the code -- the dependencies seem to go in all directions.
I feel as though I'm not learning programming the way it's done "on the street," so I figured I'd take a different approach to asking how a newbie should learn how to code. If you had to learn programming all over again, what are the things you wouldn't do? What did you spend time doing that you now know wasted you weeks or months?
Where I see beginners wasting weeks or months is typing at the keyboard. The computer is very responsive and will cheerfully chew up hours of your time in the edit-compile-run cycle. If you are learning you will save many hours if
You plan out your design on paper before you approach a computer. It doesn't matter what design method you pick or if you have never heard of a design method. Just write down a plan while your brain is fully engaged and not distracted by the computer.
When code will not compile or will not produce the right answer, if you can't fix it in five minutes, walk away from the computer. Go think about what's happening. Print out your code and scribble on it until you believe it's right.
These are just devices for helping to implement the simple but difficult old advice to think before you code.
When I was learning, I solved countless problems on the 15-minute walk from the computing center to my home. Sadly, with modern PCs we don't get that 15 minutes :-) If you can learn to take it anyway, you will become a better programmer, faster.
I certainly wouldn't start by looking at "real" software projects. Like you say, it's too hard to know where to start. That's largely because large projects are more about their large-scale design than about the individual algorithms or about program flow; for one thing, you're probably looking at a complex GUI application with multi-threading, etc. There isn't really anywhere to "start" looking at the code.
The best way to learn programming is to have a problem you want (need) to solve, and then going about solving it. But most importantly, WRITE CODE. When you read programming books, do ALL the exercises. Make sure you did them right. There's no substitute for writing code. No substitute for screwing up and then fixing it.
Stack Over F.. wait no, heh.
The biggest time-sinks for me are generally in respect to "finding the best answer." I often find that I will run into a problem that I know how to solve but feel that there is a better solution and go on the hunt for it. It is only hours/days later that I come to my senses and realize that I have 7 instances of Firefox, each containing at least 5 tabs sprawled out across 46" of monitor space that I realize that I've been caught in the black hole that is the pursuit of endless knowledge.
My advice to you, and myself for that matter, is to become comfortable with notion of refractoring. Essentially what this means (incase you are are not familiar with the term) is you come up with a solution for a problem and go with it, even if there is quite likely a better way of doing it. Once you have finished the problem, or even the program, you can then revisit your methodology, study it, and figure out where you can make changes to improve it.
This concept has always been hard for me to follow. In college I preferred to to write a paper once, print, and turn it in. Writing code can be thought of very similarly to writing a paper. Simply putting the pen to the pad and pushing out whats on your mind may work - but when you look back over it with a fresh pair of eyes you will, without question, see something you will wish you had done differently.
I just noticed you talked about reading through source trees of other people's projects. Reading other people's code is a wonderful idea, but you must read more selectively. A lot of open-source code is hard to read and not stuff you should emulate anyway. So avoid reading any code that hasn't been recommended by a programmer you respect.
Hint: Jon Bentley, Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, and P. J. Plauger, who are all programmers I respect, have published a lot of code worth reading. In books.
The only way to learn how to program is to write more code. Reading books is great, but writing / fixing code is the best way to learn. You can't learn anything without doing.
You might also want to look at this book, How to Design Programs, for more of a perspective on design than details of syntax.
The only thing that I did that wasted weeks or months was worry about whether or not my designs were the best way to implement a particular solution. I know now that this is known as "premature optimization" and we all suffer from it to one degree or another. The right way to learn programming is to solve a problem, measure your solution to make sure it performs good enough, then move on to the next problem. After some time you'll have a pile of problems you've solved, but more importantly, you'll know a programming language.
There is excellent advice here, in other posts. Here are my thoughts:
1) Learn to type, the reasons are explained in this article by Steve Yegge. It will help more than you can imagine.
2) Reading code is generally considered a hard task. So, it is better to get an open source project, compile it, and start changing it and learn that way, rather than reading and trying to understand.
I can understand the situation you're in. Reading through books, even many will not make you programmer. What you need to do is START PROGRAMMING.
Actually programming is a lot like swimming in my opinion, even if you know only a little syntax and even lesser amount of coding techniques, start coding anyway. Make a small application, a home inventory, an expense catalog, a datesheet, a cd cataloger, anything you fancy.
The idea is to get into the nitty-gritties of it. Once you start programming you'll run into real-world problems and your problem solving skills will develop as you combat them. That's how you become a better programmer everyday.
So get into the thick of it, and swim right through... That's how you'll make it.
Good luck
I think this question will have wildly different answers for different people.
For myself, I tried C++ at one point (I was about ten and had already been programming for a while), with a click-and-drag UI builder. I think this was a mistake, and I should have gone straight to C and pointers and such. Because I'm just that kind of person.
In your case, it sounds like you want to be led down the right path by someone and feel a bit timid about jumping in and doing something by yourself. (You've read several books and now you're asking what not to do.)
I'll tell you how I learned: by doing plenty of fun, relatively short projects, steadily growing in difficulty. I began with QBasic (which I think is still a great learning tool) and it was there where I developed most of my programming skills. They have of course been expanded and refined since that time but I was already capable of good design back in those days.
The sorts of projects you could take on depend on your interests; if you're mathematically inclined you might want to try a prime number generator or projecting 3D points onto the screen; if you're interested in game design then you could try cloning pong (easy) or minesweeper (harder); or if you're more of a hacker you might want to make a simple chat program or file encryption software.
Work on these projects on your own, and don't worry about whether you're doing things the "right" way. As long as you get it to work, you've learned many things. Some time after you've completed a project you may want to revisit it and try to do it better, or just see how other people have done that sort of thing.
Given the way you seem to want to be led along, perhaps you should find yourself a mentor.
Do not learn how to use pointers and how to manually manage memory. You mentioned C, and I spent plenty of time trying to fix bugs that were caused by mixing *x and &x. This is evil...
Find some problem to solve, write or draw a sketch of an algorithm solving the problem, then try to write it. Either use Python (which is much more friendly for beginners) or use C with statically allocated memory only. And use books/tutorials. They offer multiple excercises with solutions, so you can compare yours with them and see other approaches.
Once you'll feel that you can actually write something simple, see some book/tutorial for Object Oriented Design. It's not the best the world has to offer, but it might turn out to be intuitive. If not, check the functional programming (like LISP, Scheme or Haskell languages), or programming in logic (like Prolog). Maybe those will suit you better.
Also - find some mate. A person you can talk to about coding, code maintenance and design. Such person is worth even more than a book.
To all C fans: The C language is great, really. It allows memory usage optimization to the extent impossible in high-level languages as Python or Ruby. The compiled code is also very fast, and is the only choice for RTOS, or modern 3D games engine. But this is not a good entry point for a beginner, that's what I believe.
Oh, and good luck to you! And don't be ashamed to ask! If you don't ask, the answer is much harder to find.
Assuming you have decent math skills try http://projecteuler.net/ It presents a series of problems to solve of increasing dificulty that should be solvible by writing short programs. This should give you experience in solving specific problems with out getting lost in the details of open source projects.
After basic language syntax, you need to learn design. Which is hard. This book may help.
I think you should stop thinking you've wasted time so far-- instead I think you're education is just incomplete, and you've taken a step you're not really ready for. It sounds like the books you've read are useful, you're learning the intricacies of the language. It sounds like you're just not accustomed to the tools you'd use then to package that code together so it runs.
Some books cover that focus on topics like language syntax, design patterns, algorithms and data structures will never mention the tools you need to actual apply that information. These books are great but if its all you've touched I think it would explain your situation.
What development environment are you using? If you're developing for windows you really should be proficient with creating projects, adding code, running and debugging in Visual Studio. You can download Visual Studio Express for free from Microsoft.
I recommend looking for tutorial like books that actually step you through the UI of development environment you are using. Look for actual screenshots with dropdown menus. Look at what the tutorials walk you through, and if its something you don't know how to do consider buying that book. Preferably it will have code you can copy'n'paste in, not code you write yourself.
I personally don't like these books as I can anticipate how to do new things in VS based on how I'd do other things. But if you're training is incomplete from a tools-usage perspective this could move you in the right direction.
It is probably harder to find these types of tutorial books for Python or C development. There is an overabundance of them for .Net development though.
As someone who has only been working as a programmer for 6 months, I might not be the best person to help you get going, but since it wasn't that long ago when I knew next to nothing, its quite fresh in my mind.
When I started my current job programming wasn't going to be part of my job description but when the opportunity came up to do some programming on the side, I couldn't pass it up.
I spent about 1 month doing tutorials on About.com's Delphi section. As much as people diss about.com, Zarko Gajic's tutorials were simple to understand and easy to follow. Once I had a basic knack of the language and the IDE, I jumped straight into a project exporting accounting data for a program called "Adept". Took me a while but I got there...
The biggest help for me was taking on a personal project. I developed an IRC bot in Java for a crappy 2D game called Soldat. I learnt a lot by planning out and coding my own project.
Now I'm pretty comfortable with Delphi Pascal, SQL, C# and Java. I think, once you get the hang of one OOP language, you can learn the syntax of another language, and it gets a lot easier to catch on.
Perhaps start with a small existing project, and find some thing within it that handles some core part of what it does - then with a debugger, step through it and follow what it's doing from the point where you ask it to do that thing for you.
This helps you in a number of ways. You start to better grasp all of the various things that are touched by the code as it attempts to complete its request. Also, you learn invaluable debugging techniques which it seems like far too many developers lack - while you can often eventually discover what is wrong either with repeated printf() (or equivalent) calls, if you can debug you can solve issues an order of magnitude faster.
I have found that conceptually, a great mental model for understanding programming in the abstract is a pattern of data flow. When a user manipulates data, how is it altered by a program for digestion and storage? How is it transformed to re-present to the user in a form that makes sense to them? Fundamentally code is about transformation of data, and all code can be broken down into constructs of various sizes whose purpose is to alter data in one way or another, bugs forming around the mismatch between what the programmer was expecting from the data, how high level libraries the coder is using treat the data, and how the data actually arrives. Following code with a debugger helps you fully understand this transformation in action by observing changes as they occur.
Standard answer is to make something; picking an easy language to do it in is good, but not essential. It's more the working out stuff in your own head, fixing it because it won't work, that really teaches you. For me, this always happens when I try my eternal dream projects (games) which I never finish but always learn from.
I think the thing I would avoid is learning a language in isolated snippets that don't really hang together but just teach various facets of a particular language. As others have said, the really hard and important thing is to learn design. I think the best way to do this is through a tutorial that walks you through creating an actual application, teaching design along the way. That way you can learn why certain decisions are made and learn how to accomplish what's needed to implement the design choices.
For example, I found Agile Web Development with Rails to be a really easy way to learn Ruby on Rails, much better than simply reading a Ruby manual or even poking my way around scattered web tutorials.
Another thing that I would avoid is developing code in isolation, that is, not having people look at it as I go along. Getting feedback from a mentor will help keep you on the right track with respect to the choices you are making and the correct use of language idioms.
Find a problem in your life or something you do that you just feel could be more efficient and write a small solution to it. It might just be a single script but you will gain much more confidence in your abilities when you start to see useful results of your work. You will also be more motivated to finish it as you are interested in using the solution. Start simple and small and then gradually move up to bigger projects.
And as your working on a small project, focus on building everything with quality. I think this is lost on some programmers who feel that their software is more impressive if it contains a ton of features but usually those features aren't well done or usable. If you focus on building quality solutions to real problems you'll be a fantastic programmer.
Good luck!
Work on projects/problems that you already know how to solve partially
You should read Mike clark's article : How I Learned Ruby. Essentially, he used the test framework for Ruby to exercise different elemnents of the languages.
I used this technique to learn python and it was very, very helpful. Not only did i learn the language, but I was very proficient in the test framework for Python at the end of the excercise. Once you have the basics you can start reading code and then working on building some larger project.
I've been working on a project that can't be described as 'small' anymore (40+ months), with a team that can't be defined as 'small' anymore (~30 people). We've been using Agile/Scrum (1) practices all along, and a healthy dose of TDD.
I'm not sure if I picked this up from Agile or TDD, more likely a combination of the two, but I'm now clearly in the camp of people that looks at debugging as a bad smell. By 'debugging' I'm not referring to the more abstract concept of figuring out what might be wrong with the system, but the specific activity of running the system in Debug mode, stepping through the code to figure out details that are otherwise inscrutable.
Since I'm fairly convinced, this question is not about whether debugging is a bad smell or not. Rather, I'd like to know how I can persuade my team-mates about this.
People that believe debugging mode is the 'standard' mode tend to write code that can be understood only by debugging through it, which leads to a lot of time wasted since every time you work an item on top of code developed by someone else, you get to first spend a considerable amount of time debugging it (and, since there's no bug involved.. the term is becoming increasingly ridiculous) - and then silos happen. So I'd love to convince a few of my team-mates that avoiding debug mode is a Good Thing (2). Since they are used to live in Debug mode, however, they don't seem to see the problem; to them, spending hours debugging someone else code before they even start doing anything related to their new item is the norm; they don't see anything wrong with it. Plus, as they spend time 'figuring it out' they know eventually the developer that worked that area will become available and the item will be passed on to them (leading to yet another silo).
Help me come up with a plan to turn them from the Dark Side !
Thanks in advance.
(1) Also referred to as SCRUM (all caps). Capitalization arguments aside, I think an asterisk after the term must be used since - unsurprisingly - our organization 'tweaked' the Agile and Scrum process to fit the perceived needs of all stakeholders involved. So, in all honesty, I won't pretend this has been 100% according to theory, but that's beside the point of my question.
(2) Yes, there will always be times when we'll have to get in debug mode, I'm not trying to absolutely avoid it, just.. trying to minimize the number of times we have to dive into it.
If you want to persuade your coworkers that your programming practices are better, first demonstrate by your productiveness that you are more effective than they are, at least for some tasks. Then they'll believe you when you explain how you get so much done.
It's also sometimes easier to focus on something concrete. Do your coworkers even talk in terms of "code smell"? Perhaps you could focus on specifics like "When the ABC module fails, it takes forever to debug it; it's much faster to use technique XYZ. Here, let me demonstrate." Then afterwards you can mention your basic principle, which is yeah the debugger is a useful tool, but there's usually other more useful ones.
This is a cross-post, because the first time around it was more of an aside on someone else's answer to a different question. To this question it's a direct answer.
Debugging degrades the quality code of
the code we produce because it allows
us to get away with a lower level of
preparation and less mental
discipline. I learnt this from an
accidental controlled experiment in
early 2000, which I now relate:
I took on a contract as a Delphi
coder, and the first task assigned was
to write a template engine
conceptually similar to a reporting
engine - using Java, a language with
which I was unfamiliar.
Bizarrely, the employer was quite
happy to pay me contract rates to
spend months becoming proficient with
a new language, but wouldn't pay for
books or debuggers. I was told to
download the compiler and learn using
online resources (Java Trails were
pretty good).
The golden rule of arts and sciences
is that whoever has the gold makes the
rules, so I proceeded as instructed. I
got my editor macros rigged up so I
could launch the Java compiler on the
current edit buffer with a single
keystroke, I found syntax-colouring
definitions for my editor and I used
regexes to parse the compiler output
and put my cursor on the reported
location of compile errors. When the
dust settled, I had a little IDE with
everything but a debugger.
To trace my code I used the good old
fashioned technique of inserting
writes to the console that logged
position in the code and the state of
any variables I cared to inspect. It
was crude, it was time-consuming, it
had to be pulled out once the code
worked and it sometimes had confusing
side-effects (eg forcing
initialisation earlier than it might
otherwise have occurred resulting in
code that only works while the trace
is present).
Under these conditions my class
methods got shorter and more and more
sharply defined, until typically they
did exactly one very well defined
operation. They also tended to be
specifically designed for easy
testing, with simple and completely
deterministic output so I could test
them independently.
The long and the short of it is that
when debugging is more painful than
designing, the path of least
resistance is better design.
What turned this from an observation
to a certainty was the success of the
project. Suddenly there was budget and
I had a "proper" IDE with an
integrated debugger. Over the course
of the next two weeks I noticed a
reversion to prior habits, with
"sketch" code made to work by
iterative refinement in the debugger.
Having noticed this I recreated some
earlier work using a debugger in place
of thoughtful design. Interestingly,
taking away the debugger slowed
development only slightly, and the
finished code was vastly better
quality particularly from a
maintenance perspective.
Don't get me wrong: there is a place
for debuggers. Personally, I think
that place is in the hands of the team
leader, to be brought out in times of
dire need to figure out a mystery, and
then taken away again before people
lose their discipline.
People won't want to ask for it
because that would be an admission of
weakness in front of their peers, and
the act of explaining the need and the
surrounding context may well induce
peer insights that solve the problem -
or even better designs free from the
problem.
So, FOR, I not only agree with your position, I have real data from a controlled experiment to support it. It is, however, a rather small sample. More elaborate tests are required before my conclusions are supportable.
Why don't you take what I've said to your team and suggest trials. You have more data than they do (I just gave it to you) and in order to have a credible basis for disagreeing with you they basically have to test the idea, and the only way to do that is to give your idea a go.
You should be ready for it to all fall apart, though, because the whole thing is predicated on the assumption that the developers have the talent and experience to rise to the challenge of stronger design in the absence of step-through debugging.
Step-through debugging was created to make debugging easier. The direct effect of lowering the bar is that people with less talent can participate - if you build a tool that even jackasses can use, you will get jackasses using it -- a lot of them, if the newly accessible activity is well-remunerated.
This causes an exodus of people with talent because they generally use that talent to do rare and precious things in order to be well paid without working too hard, and the market doesn't want to pay for excellence because it cannot distinguish talent well enough to know when paying for it is justified.
Another thought: more recent work with problems on production servers, where it was impossible to install a debugger, has shown the importance of having a codebase for which maintenance doesn't depend on the availability of a debugger. Code that's grown in the absence of debuggers is much less hassle. Choose not to use them when you can change your mind, and then when you can't change your mind it won't be so awful.
Since I'm fairly convinced, this question is not about whether debugging is a bad smell or not.
Well, your local Church might be more appropriate place for your question then.
That aside, convince them by arguments. You might want to reconsider your fundamentalist stance, however, because this is the very opposite of persuasive. One thing you might want to do is drop the term “debugging” in your whole discussion and replace it by “stepping through the code” or the likes, emphasizing that you oppose the uninformend guesswork/patchwork practice of probing that you condemn rather than an informed reflection about the code.
(I would still disagree with you, but that's besides the point since you didn't want a discussion.)
I think the real problem here is
People that believe debugging mode is
the 'standard' mode tend to write code
that can be understood only by
stepping through it
This, if true, should be self evidently wrong and there should be no need to discuss it. If it's not evident it's because they don't see how the badly written code could be improved. Show them, do code reviews where you show how that code could be refactored in a way that is clear without stepping through it.
Code stepping will automatically diminish once better code is written, it just doesn't work the other way around. People will still write bad code and if they avoid stepping through it that will only lead to more wasted time (damn I wish I could step through this spaghetti mess), not to better code.
There is something wrong here, but it's hard to put my finger on it. Perhaps the real issue is that the code has other smells that make it difficult to readily understand. I agree that with TDD one ought to use the debugger less rather than more, since you'll be developing the code in small increments. But, if you can't look at the code and understand it, perhaps it's because the design is too coupled -- there are too many interrelated classes required to make things work.
If the code really needs to be so complex that observation won't suffice, then maybe you need to invest in some good commenting, explaining what is happening -- though I would prefer to see things refactored to the point where comments are not needed. My suspicion is that the debugger may be a symptom rather than the problem.
I know that for me, switching from traditional, code-first development to test-first development has resulted in less time spent debugging...and it's not something I miss. Typically I'll only involve the debugger when its not obvious why the code I just wrote to pass a test, didn't.
This is going to sound like the argument you said you don't want to have, but I think if you want to convince your teammates, you're going to have to make a stronger case. I don't understand your objection. I frequently step through code I'm trying to understand with the debugger. It's a great way to see what's going on. You have not established your claim that people who use the debugger in this way tend to write code which is otherwise difficult to understand. The only convincing way to do so would be through some kind of case/control study which tried to measure and compare the readability of code written by people with varying approaches to the debugger. And you have not even told a plausible story explaining why you think using a tool to understand code execution tends to lead to sloppier code construction. For me it's a complete non sequitur.
A "plan" to convince them of the advantage of another approach is by establishing metrics linked to the number of time you debug the same function for different bugs.
By analysis the trend of that metric, you may convince them that non-regression tests are more useful to spend time writing, and will help them to debug more efficiently.
That way, you do not write completely off the "debug" habit, but you convince them of establishing a solid set of test, allowing them to focus on really useful debug session, if needed.
Should you consider this course of action (metrics), you should know its implementation involves the all hierarchy (stakeholder, project manager, architect, developers). They all need to be implicated in those metrics in order to act on them.
Regarding developers, you could try to suggest:
some new ways of closing a bug case (close it only with the test scenario played to reproduce that bug, meaning they need an independent test in order to, if needed, launch their debug session)
a clear relationship between those metrics and their evaluation by the management (it would be a bad practice to debug over and over the same function)
a larger involvement in architectural decisions: sometimes, knowing some functional or applicative features rather than just classes and code can incite a developer to think more in term of black-box test rather than white-box (which can more easily lead to debug session)
a participation into "operational architecture" process (where you need to deploy your app, and make full front-to-back integration test). Again, a larger picture of the all system can help a developer to get more interested in features rather than 'lines of code'
I think a better phrasing of this question would be "Is non-TDD a code smell?" TDD seems to lead to less time spent in the debugger due to more time spent writing/failing/passing tests. Without TDD, you are more likely to spend time in the debugger to diagnose errors.
At least within Visual Studio, using the debugger is not that painful, so the challenge for you would be to explain to your teammates how TDD would make their development more enjoyable, productive and successful. Just avoiding the debugger is probably not reason enough for a team to switch their development methodology.
Right on roadwarrior.
debugging isn't the problem, it's poorly commented and or documented code and bad archetecture. I work on a smaller team but when a bug does surface, I do step through the code. frequently it's a very small job because the app is well planned out and the doc's on the code are clear.
That said lets get to my point. Want the team to not debug... comment, comment comment. Nothing beats down the urge to debug faster. Sure they'll still do it, but they'll be more likely to step over well documented code.
Oh and though it should go without saying, I'll do it anyway. don't have bugs in your code. :)
I agree with those above who expressed the relative irrelevance of this "debugger issue."
IMO, the 2 most important goals of a developer are:
1) Make the software do what it's supposed to do.
2) Write the code so that a maintenance developer 2 years down the road enjoys the experience of changing existing or adding new features.
Before you make a plan, you should decide how important this change is to you. Although I agree that debugging is a smell, it is also a very well accepted and ingrained practice for developers, so convincing them that they should stop doing it won't be easy or quick - and for good reasons. How much energy do you want to put into this topic?
Second, why do you want to persuade them in the first place? If your motivation is to help them, is it really their top priority problem? When you help people in ways they want to be helped, change becomes easy.
Once you have decided that you want to go on with your change initiative, you need to take into account that different people are convinced by different things. Some people will already be convinced by trying something new and exciting. Some will be convinced by numbers (metrics). Some by getting told about it while eating their favorite type of cookie (seriously!), some by hearing about it from their favorite guru. Some by reading about it in a magazine. Some by seeing that "everyone else is doing it, too". Etc. pp.
There is an insightful interview with Linda Rising on this topic at InfoQ: http://www.infoq.com/interviews/Linda-Rising-Fearless-Change. She can say it much better than me. The book is quite good, too.
Whatever you do, don't press too much, but also don't give up. Change can happen - especially if you take resistance as a resource -, and sometimes it happens at unexpected times, so always keep a sense of wonder.
#FOR : You have a second problem too, here it is :
sadly it doesn't seem the devs are interested in being more productive (they get paid the same anyway)
How do you intend to make them want to be more productive when there is nothing (visible) for them to gain?
Designing software by debugging is a good practice.
The number of environments supporting this way of developing is very small: the best known is Smalltalk. In Smalltalk, you can write a test describing your objects protocol without the methods being implemented. Running this test will then trigger the debugger, and you can add the method to the right class in the debugger, and can continue stepping through the code until all functionality is implemented and the test is green.
This needs a compiler to be available at run-time, and first-class invocations. It offers a very short feedback cycle, and is one of the primary reasons for Smalltalks' productivity