Yes, that is exactly the post and its replies to which I refer.
Linus: I'd rather not work with people who aren't careful. It's darwinism in software development.
Merlyn: If you can't program careful enough to not need a debugger, then either slow down your rate of coding, or pick a different profession. Please

Compare to: I'd rather not work with people who can't match my superior level of intelligence. It's darwinism in intellectuality.
or: If you can't program carefully enough to not need a compiler, then either slow down your rate of coding, or pick a different profession. Please.

Any way I read it, it still sounds elitist. Like the old ASM programmer I met when I first started.

I don't disagree with you about problematic code sneaking up on one, or that Vigilance is the price of good code. But blaming the tool is a poor excuse.

Elevators are a wonderful invention, and people can use them to get between floors in tall buildings. The people who use them are (for the most part) not less able to use the stairs just because they are using the elevator. But someone who comes to *depend* solely upon the elevator to move between floors is limiting themselves; just as is the person who limits themself to using stairs.

tilly: What is tolerable to a person with a debugger may not be to someone without. The converse may be less obvious.
And thats ok, but thats a bit different than saying that the person who chooses to use a debugger "should find another profession".

tilly: The third claim is the controversial one... that the tendancy to lose vigilance with debuggers is a severe enough issue to forgo the debugging convenience they give.
And I say that the tendency to lose vigilance with compilers is a severe issue too, but not enough to forgo their use.
Dependency is the hair I think we are trying to split here.

tilly: The issue the other way is that if you don't use a debugger, it is easier to add in levels of indirection in your design.
I agree, debuggers are not perfect, especially when dealing with indirection, but that doesn't, IMO, make them useless, or even dangerous to use.


"That that is, is... for what is that but that? and is but is?" Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, Act IV, Scene 2

"Yet THAT which is not neither is nor is not That which is!" Frater Perdurabo (pseud. Aleister Crowley), Liber CCCXXXIII, The Book of Lies

In reply to Re: Re (tilly) 3 (misread): Perl debugging - a look at 'beta' mechanism by poqui
in thread Perl debugging - a look at 'beta' mechanism by vladb

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.