News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by coldtea on Saturday April 09, 2016 @12:42AM (#11459955)
There's nothing wrong about "debugging with print statements".

If anything, if you're any good at it, it shows better knowledge of your program's behavior than blindly looking around in the stack on a debugger.

In fact some of the biggest name programmers use just that -- including the very people who created .

At best it's "hardcore" -- but not "bad" or anything like what's in the list. Here's some appeal to coding authority for ya:

"The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with judiciously placed print statements." Brian Kernigham

"I don't like debuggers. Never have, probably never will." — Linus Torvalds

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by JoshTriplett on Saturday April 09, 2016 @12:52AM (#11459981)
> There's nothing wrong about "debugging with print statements".

Nor is there anything wrong with searching for the text of an error message, but both are funny to see as a fake book cover.

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by jschwartzi on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:09AM (#11460163)
It's such a simple tool that it feels wrong the first time you do it.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by tdsamardzhiev on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:20AM (#11460179)
Yet it's also the only thing that actually works in a tough debugging situation.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by interfixus on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:58AM (#11460281)
Thank you so much. I shall give my guilt complex its first day off for twenty years.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by adamson on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:18PM (#11462812)
If you want to justify it even more, you can think of it as testing invariants at various points in your program flow!