Comparing Pythagorean triples in C++, D, and Rust

Re:Comparing Pythagorean triples in C++, D, and Rust by SlowRobotAhead on Monday December 31, 2018 @02:30PM (#18796404)

It's funny to me as an embedded programmer seeing people write about how they prefer printf to actual debugging. My printf command can take MANY TIMES longer to run than most of the code that I'm trying to fix.

Maybe it's a software vs hardware thing, but I would end it all if I had to work hardware without breakpoints, watches, and step-through.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparing Pythagorean triples in C++, D, and Rust by WalterBright on Monday December 31, 2018 @04:57PM (#18797302)

I used to build/program embedded systems (around a 6800 uP). I'd debug using an oscilloscope, sometimes an LED attached to a pin, sometimes connecting the pin to a speaker (!). There wasn't enough EPROM space for a printf. And besides, the turnaround time for erasing/blowing an EPROM was just too long.

Essentially you just get good at staring at the code and running gedanken experiments till you figure it out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparing Pythagorean triples in C++, D, and Rust by burntsushi on Monday December 31, 2018 @02:37PM (#18796441)

Why is it funny? And why do you not consider printf to be "actual" debugging? I mean, if printf wasn't available to me or was for some reason otherwise inconvenient, then I would look for other avenues to debug, perhaps by using a debugger! This isn't that mystifying.

As I said above, this is very heavily dependent on preferred workflows and what you're working on. Long ago, I remember doing some robotics work in C, and a debugger was invaluable.

[ Parent | on HN ]