Lisp: it's not about macros, it's about READ (2012)

Re:Lisp: it's not about macros, it's about READ (2012) by mikekchar on Monday July 18, 2016 @04:37AM (#12113864)

I find with good unit tests a debugger is just not necessary. I haven't used a debugger in anger for many years now. In fact, if I run into a problem where I feel that I need a debugger, I refactor the code so that I don't need a debugger any more. In doing that, I usually find my problem ;-)

But you are right. Different strokes for different folks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp: it's not about macros, it's about READ (2012) by xuejie on Monday July 18, 2016 @10:17AM (#12115139)

Honestly I think unit tests and interactive debuggers are really for different purposes: unit tests are more used to guard existing code that has been written, while a debugger can be more useful tinkering with new libraries before writing anything production ready.

This is especially true for Ruby(and maybe for Clojure?), since in many cases documentations for libraries are not so great, so you will really have to try the library a little bit to get to the results you want.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp: it's not about macros, it's about READ (2012) by aidenn0 on Tuesday July 19, 2016 @10:50PM (#12126542)

I know a lot of people in Lisp and Smalltalk communities that use unit tests still use the interactive debugging environment. In fact, many of them write their unit tests in the REPL, and then paste them into their test-code. There are even a couple of unit testing libraries for CL that are specifically designed for doing this.

[edit]

I also recommend that you watch the video xuejie posted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hfMUP5iTq8), as it's about using a debugger to write code more than using a debugger to fix code.

[ Parent | on HN ]