Newbie

[jameskuyper]

Kenny, are you telling me that the Google results come with little
pink "Han found me" tags? Truly Google have some wonderful technology.
I swoon.

Well, short of a searchable "Han found me" tag, we have to rely upon
strategies such as searching for things like "debugger" and "bad
programmer" and comp.lang.c. Last night that search retrieved about
100 hits. As usual, GG only showed me the threads containing the
messages matching my search criteria - finding the particular message
in each thread which matched was sufficiently annoying that I only
looked in detail at the 10 most recent hits; none involved anyone
actually saying that debuggers were only for bad programmers.

I just repeated that search and got only 5 hits - typical Google
Groups reliability. As before, none of them involved anyone actually
saying that debuggers were only for bad programmers.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Well, short of a searchable "Han found me" tag, we have to rely upon
strategies such as searching for things like "debugger" and "bad
programmer" and comp.lang.c. Last night that search retrieved about
100 hits. As usual, GG only showed me the threads containing the
messages matching my search criteria - finding the particular message
in each thread which matched was sufficiently annoying that I only
looked in detail at the 10 most recent hits; none involved anyone
actually saying that debuggers were only for bad programmers.

I just repeated that search and got only 5 hits - typical Google
Groups reliability. As before, none of them involved anyone actually
saying that debuggers were only for bad programmers.

I wouldn't want to perfom the search myself and critique any results
only to have Han explain that those weren't the posts I was looking for;
it would be a (further) waste of our time. If Han has posts that say
what he says they say, then let him bring them forth without ambiguity,
that we may see them and make our judgements.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I wouldn't want to perfom the search myself and critique any results
only to have Han explain that those weren't the posts I was looking for;
it would be a (further) waste of our time. If Han has posts that say
what he says they say, then let him bring them forth without ambiguity,
that we may see them and make our judgements.

I probably won't see whatever Han or Richard Nolastname has to say on
this (which is fine) -- but at least one other person has made a
similar claim. William Pursell recently claimed:

| I have many times seen people make the bogus claim that debuggers
| are for bad programmers. ( Although it is entirely possible that
| only one person has made the claim multiple times, and that the
| claims have blurred in my memory to become claims from many people,
| but the meat of Richard's claim is perfectly valid.)

I've asked him for a citation.

I agree that the claim that "debuggers are for bad programmers" is
bogus; I'm merely skeptical that anyone here has actually made such a
claim, and extremely skeptical that it's been made "many times".

 

[Chris Dollin]

Chris - you have been trolled.

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Trolls should stick to bridge.

Sir, you pollute the noble game with such suggestions.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Why not start with the Nick Keighley post?

I can't see any reason not to. Go ahead and quote it, saying what it's
an example of. You could of course have done so already; I'm puzzled
as to why you did not.

I know you're itching to quote it for the benefit of the
fake-killfiler bubble to give them the piggyback assist.

Once again, your "knowledge" is false-to-fact, even discounting the
rhetorical biology. My purposes may be devious, but that's not the
path.

 

[Chris Dollin]

Good call.

My work here is done.

 

[Phil Carmody]

Well, the B in Basic stands for Beginner's. And it's interactive
nature meant you didn't have to worry about the concepts of compiling
and linking or whatever other baggage was needed on those early
machines.

And it's string handling was outstanding, better even that C's
today. (Although I've never used Basic myself, only admired it)

BASIC's only good for one thing. Or, more precisely, for
educating you by one bit. That bit is the fact that there
exist environments where you can get the computer to do
anything you can tell it to do.

Once you're armed with that bit, you should quickly seek
out an environment where telling it to do what you want is
easy. (This of course depends on what you want.)

Phil

 

[CBFalconer]

Chris Dollin said:
.... snip ...


Obviously. If he were able to argue rationally, he wouldn't need
to troll.


Trolls should stick to bridge.

McCormack does appear in rec.games.bridge and doesn't troll there.

 

[JosephKK]

IIRC, we called the 1620 a "CADET" machine. "Can't Add, Doesn't Even
Try".

I got started in 1968 or so writing Fortran and feeding the 1620 and
what we called the "DCS" at the U of W. I think it was an IBM 7040
tied to a 7094 mod II. Also Algol running on a Burroughs B5500. And
assembler for a Honeywell 516 mini.

Actually saw a running (!) 709 once. Vacuum tubes.

I'm out of here before I get my elderly butt scorched by the hall
monitors...

Bill

I started in my early 20's in 1972/1973. Machine code at first,
finally a macro assembler for the 32-bit bit slice CP-1303/AN-UYK7.
All magnetic core machines. People wrote games for them (needed fancy
$50,000+ displays though).

 

[Chris Dollin]

I hope not. The passage I quoted is actually the Ian Collins
quote.

You accepted (or wrote so as to foster the appearance of accepting)
that my call of BLUFF was correct.

I wanted to see what you'd say if you thought it came from me.

And what did I say?

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


I started in my early 20's in 1972/1973. Machine code at first,
finally a macro assembler for the 32-bit bit slice CP-1303/AN-UYK7.
All magnetic core machines. People wrote games for them (needed
fancy $50,000+ displays though).

Back in the '53 .. '55 era we had a big new installation of
something at Atomic Energy of Canada. At the time I was into
electronics, with such things as discriminators, counters, etc.
(all tubes). Transistors were just appearing, and I used one to
three as front end amplifliers. If I had gotten into computers
then instead of ten years later, who knows. We had lectures on CRT
memories, for example.

 

[Richard Bos]

Yes, I was bluffing about bluffing -- i.e., a double bluff.

You can't get out of it that easily.

Hic Rhodos, hic salta.

Richard

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

so how you could find where are the logical
or "code path" errors: with printf??

Did you multi-post this? I replied to something very similar from you
in comp.programming. See my reply there since this is much more
general issue than C.

 

[JosephKK]

Thanks I didnt know the headers displayed which client the poster was
using.


I meant learning Visual Basic as a first language doesnt appeal to
me given how high level it is. However Ill definitely keep myself more
open minded about programming in general.

There is nothing in learning any high level programming language that
deserves disrespect, however some of them offer you scant guidance in
proper structure. Some semi-philosophical purists have only one
language and are poorer programmers for it. Indeed learning multiple
natural languages (which your posts imply you do) can help you in
learning programming. Programming languages have formal grammars far
beyond that of natural languages; this tends to limit what they can
express.
.

 

[Guest]

well, can anyone?


In other words I didn't say (or imply) "debuggers are for bad
programmers".

Dammit! I fed the troll!

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard in my entire life.

You can not (normally) automate using a debugger to examine the flow of
a program at a critical stage.

sorry, are you saying "nick keighley cannot automate using a debugger
to
examine the flow of a program at a critical stage" or "no one can
automate..."?

Not that it matters, since I never said anything about automating the
debugger
(or failing to automate). I'm aware that some debuggers have
automation almost
amounting to built in programming languages. Since gdb is pretty
sophisticated
I'd expect it to have this sort of functionality. I simply don't find
it useful.

I can only assume you are a hobbyist
programmer who has never had to fix/maintain a legacy code base.
nope

You
seem unable or unwilling to understand my point of how a debugger can be
used - and its not only to "find bugs".

I've heard you say it (several times) I'm just not convinced.

If you think printf()s are the same or as reliable as using a debugger
you really need to step back and read what a debugger is and how to use
it.

actually I use a custom logger. I'd oly use printf() in a fairly
noddy program.

here is a hint : a debugger allows you to set break and watch points

yup. Used a debugger for that. Frequently.

where you can have the equivalent of your printf()s without the need to
risk modifying the code and introducing heisenbugs.  That is the tip of
the iceberg.

I would never in a million years hire a person who refuses to use a
debugger to help in tracking down bugs.

I have *never* said I wouldn't use a debugger as one way to find bugs.
I used one last week (the week before actually, but I've been on
holiday).

Its why they exist.

ok, with you so far


you are paraphrasing

I just found this from the ID you posted.

Is Keighley serious?

I seem to recall him giving me the impression before he had zero idea
what a debugger can do. It is now doubly reinforced.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I can only assume you are a hobbyist
programmer who has never had to fix/maintain a legacy code base.

nope[/QUOTE]

You're lucky, then. Maintaining other people's code is a thankless job.

I envy you.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

In other words I didn't say (or imply) "debuggers are for bad
programmers".

Dammit! I fed the troll!


sorry, are you saying "nick keighley cannot automate using a
debugger to examine the flow of a program at a critical stage"
or "no one can automate..."?

Two trolls, and you are still feeding!

 

[Guest]

...



You're lucky, then.  Maintaining other people's code is a thankless job..

I envy you.

You have that backward. I meant his assumption was wrong. I have
maintained
large code bases written by other people.