|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
|( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )||Need Help??|
All I can add is that I do not consider the logging of a program's input parameters and other external inputs (env. vars etc.) as "cutesy informational messages"; as they are crucial to reproducing failing runs.
I do consider the logging of subroutine inputs as "cutesy", as they (given access to the program's inputs) are reproducible, on demand, driven by need, at runtime when debugging.
Having worked on systems that used extensive logging of every subroutine, function and method parameters, along with every detail of the programs action that the programmer thought might be useful when debugging, and having had to wade through gigabyte after gigabyte of mostly meaningless and always reproducible logs trying to work out where things went wrong, I have a strong aversion to the cutesy, guessed-it-might-be-useful kind of logging.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In reply to Re^3: Choosing a log level