There are two kinds of bugs: the rare, tricky race conditions and the everyday “oh shucks” ones. The rare ones show up maybe 1% of the time—they demand a debugger, careful tracing, and detective work. The “oh shucks” kind where I am half sure what it is when I see the shape of the exception message from across the room - that is all the rest of the time. A simple print statement usually does the trick for this kind.

Leave us be. We know what we’re doing.

I see it the exact other way around:

- everyday bugs, just put a breakpoint

- rare cases: add logging

By definition a rare case probably will rarely show up in my dev environment if it shows up at all, so the only way to find them is to add logging and look at the logs next time someone reports that same bug after the logging was added.

Something tells me your debugger is really hard to use, because otherwise why would you voluntarily choose to add and remove logging instead of just activating the debugger?

Rare 1% bugs practically require prints debugging because they are only going to appear only 6 times if you run the test 600 times. So you just run the test 600 times all at once, look at the logs of the 6 failed tests, and fix the bug. You don’t want to run the debugger 600 times in sequence.

The tricky race conditions are the ones you often don't see in the debugger, because stopping one thread makes the behavior deterministic. But that aside, for webapps I feel it's way easier to just set a breakpoint and stop to see a var's value instead of adding a print statement for it (just to find out that you also need to see the value of another var). So given you just always start in debugging mode, there's no downside if you have a good IDE.

> The rare ones show up maybe 1% of the time

Lucky you lol

What I've found is that as you chew through surface level issues, at one point all that's left is messy and tricky bugs.

Still have a vivid memory of moving a JS frontend to TS and just overnight losing all the "oh shucks" frontend bugs, being left with race conditions and friends.

Not to say you can't do print debugging with that (tracing is fancy print debugging!), but I've found that a project that has a lot of easy-to-debug issues tends to be at a certain level of maturity and as times goes on you start ripping your hair out way more

I've had far better luck print debugging tricky race conditions than using a debugger.

The only language where I've found a debugger particularly useful for race condition debugging is go, where it's a lot easier to synthetically trigger race conditions in my experience.

I used to agree with this, but then I realized that you can use trace points (aka non-suspending break points) in a debugger. These cover all the use cases of print statements with a few extra advantages:

- You can add new traces, or modify/disable existing ones at runtime without having to recompile and rerun your program.

- Once you've fixed the bug, you don't have to cleanup all the prints that you left around the codebase.

I know that there is a good reason for debugging with prints: The debugging experience of many languages suck. In that case I always use prints. But if I'm lucky to use a language with good debugging tooling (e.g Java/Kotlin + IntelliJ IDEA), there is zero chance to ever print for debugging.

Even print debugging is easier in a good debugger.

Print debugging in frontend JS/TS is literally just writing the statement "debugger;" and saving the file. JS, unlike supposedly better designed languages, is designed to support hot reloading so often times just saving the file will launch me into the debugger at the line of code in question.

I used to write C++, and setting up print statements, while easier than using LLDB, is still harder than that.

I still use print debugging, but only when the debugger fails me. It's still easier to write a series of console.log()s than to set up logging breakpoints. If only there was an equivalent to "debugger;" that supported log and continue.

Fully agree.

If I find myself using a debugger it’s usually one two things: - freshly written low level assembly code that isn’t working - basic userspace app crash (in C) where whipping out gdb is faster than adding prints and recompiling.

Even never needed a debugger for complex kernel drivers — just prints.

Well, if you have a race condition, the debugger is likely to change the timing and alter the race, possibly hiding it altogether. Race conditions is where print is often more useful than the debugger.

> the rare, tricky race conditions [...]. The rare ones show up maybe 1% of the time—they demand a debugger,

Interesting. I usually find those harder to debug with a debugger. Debuggers change the timing when stepping through, making the bug disappear. Do you have a cool trick for that? (Or a mundane trick, I'm not picky.)

It is also much much easier to fix all kinds of all other bugs stepping through code with the debugger.

I am in camp where 1% on the easy side of the curve can be efficiently fixed by print statements.

> Leave us be. We know what we’re doing.

No shade, this was my perspective until recently as well, but I disagree now.

The tipping point for me was the realisation that if I'm printing code out for debugging, I must be executing that code, and if I'm executing that code anyway, it's faster for me to click a debug point in an IDE than it is to type out a print statement.

Not only that, but the thing that I forgot to include in my log line doesn't require adding it in and re-spinning, I can just look it up when the debug point is hit.

I don't know why it took me so long to change the habit but one day it miraculously happened overnight.

The real question is, why do we (as an industry) not use testing frameworks more to see if we could replicate those rare obscure bugs? If you can code the state, you now can reproduce it 100% of the time. The real answer seems to me, is that the industry isn't writing any or enough unit tests.

If your code can be unit tested, you can twist and turn it in many ways, if it's not an integration issue.

I don't see any evidence that the 1% of bugs can be reduced so easily. A debugger is unsuitable just as often as print debugging is. There is no inherent edge it gives to the sort of reasoning demanded. It is just a flathead rather than a phillips. The only thing that distinguishes this sort of bug from the rest is pain.

Often you can also just use conditional breakpoints, which surprisingly few people know about (to be clear, it's still a breakpoint, but your application just auto continues if false. Is usually usable via right click on the area you're clicking on to set the breakpoint.

When the print statements cause a change in asynchronous data hazards that leads to the issue disappearing, then what's the plan since you appear to "know it all" already? Perhaps you don't know as much as you profess, professor.

> Leave us be. We know what we’re doing.

No. You’re wrong.

I’ll give you an example a plain vanilla ass bug that I dealt with today.

Teammate was trying to use portaudio with ALDA on one of cloud Linux machines for CI tests. Portaudio was failing to initialize with an error that it failed to find the host api.

Why did it fail? Where did it look? What actual operation failed? Who the fuck knows! With a debugger this would take approximately 30 seconds to understand exactly why it failed. Without a debugger you need to spend a whole bunch of time figuring out how a random third party library works to figure out where the fuck to even put a printf.

Printf debugging is great if it’s within systems you already know inside and out. If you deal with code that isn’t yours then debugger is more then an order of magnitude faster and more efficient.

It’s super weird how proud people are to not use tools that would save them hundreds of hours per year. Really really weird.

This post exactly.