←back to thread

Seer: A GUI front end to GDB for Linux

(github.com)
376 points turrini | 4 comments | 15 Nov 24 12:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
rkharsan64 ◴[15 Nov 24 13:44 UTC] No.42146864[source]▶
On a general note, I would recommend any new (and experienced!) programmers to master the debugging tools of their ecosystem. I've seen countless experienced developers use printf-based debugging and waste hourse debugging something which could've been easily figured out by setting a breakpoint and stepping through your code. This is also a good way to understand code you're unfamiliar with.

This is one area where I believe a GUI tool is so much better: I can hover over variable names to view their values, expand and collapse parts of a nested structure, edit values easily, and follow execution in the same environment I write my code in.

Sure, it doesn't help much for some scenarios (one I've heard people mention is multithreaded code, where logs are better?), but for most people it's not that far from a superpower.

replies(13): >>42147055 #>>42147066 #>>42147101 #>>42147176 #>>42147333 #>>42147405 #>>42147537 #>>42147789 #>>42147794 #>>42148121 #>>42148413 #>>42149115 #>>42152454 #
mpweiher ◴[15 Nov 24 14:12 UTC] No.42147101[source]▶
Interesting.

My experience is the opposite: I see developers waste hours stepping through their code a line at a time when a few judiciously placed logs (printfs() are fine, but we can do better) would have told them exactly what they needed in a jiffy.

If you have a fairly shallow bug, that is a single point in your code that always behaves incorrectly, then I find debuggers reasonably effective.

But most of the bugs that I see aren't that shallow, with code misbehaving when the context is just so and perfectly fine otherwise. In those cases, I need to see lots of different invocations and their context. The debugger is like trying to drink the information ocean I need through a straw. A mostly plugged straw.

I wonder what makes our experiences so different? Do you unit test a lot? Particularly with TDD? I am guessing that this practice means I just don't get to see a lot of the bugs that a debugger would help me with.

(And it doesn't mean I never fire up the debugger. But it is fairly rare).

replies(22): >>42147211 #>>42147237 #>>42147245 #>>42147283 #>>42147315 #>>42147373 #>>42147478 #>>42147783 #>>42147884 #>>42147930 #>>42148469 #>>42148634 #>>42148838 #>>42148842 #>>42148881 #>>42148922 #>>42149104 #>>42149226 #>>42151135 #>>42155917 #>>42156264 #>>42179165 #
1. setopt ◴[15 Nov 24 14:24 UTC] No.42147211[source]▶
I have more or less the same experience like you. Logging is a very resilient and adaptable technique – I can use it on my laptop or on remote HPC clusters, almost regardless of programming language (except maybe Haskell), it works fine on parallelized code, and so on, with very little configuration needed. It’s also important to me that it can be done “async”, since some of my larger codes can only be run on HPC clusters by putting a job in a process queue and waiting.

I’ve tried debuggers and see the appeal but I find it less useful than print debugging / logging.

I also rely heavily on unit tests when writing new code, so that also reduces the surface that I need to look for bugs based on the log. Moreover, most of my projects have 1-3 programmers and can largely “fit in my head” (<10,000 lines of code), so it’s probably different if you work at a FAANG company or something.

replies(1): >>42147680 #
2. coliveira ◴[15 Nov 24 15:21 UTC] No.42147680[source]▶
I think you have a great point here. Debugging tools make you dependent on a particular environment. Printing based debugging can work pretty much everywhere. If you master printf programming you can solve any debugging task.
replies(1): >>42148387 #
3. schmidtleonard ◴[15 Nov 24 16:28 UTC] No.42148387[source]▶
Yes, portability and simplicity are the best parts of printf.

> If you master printf

The skill ceiling is low. Printf only does so much.

You could rope in environmental optimization to the skill discussion -- the ability to isolate areas of functionality, replicate problems, reason about unknown state, and do the legwork so that you can quickly spin the increased amount of iteration required by a simpler debugging tool -- but by then you have thoroughly sacrificed both simplicity and portability and are far past the skill floor of a debugger.

If we assess this by looking for problems created by overcommitting to one approach or another, overcommitting to a debugger looks like burning time trying to get tooling to work on a problem that doesn't really need it while overcommitting to printf looks like spending way too much time iterating on tiny steps that could have been jumped over given better visibility. I've seen both, of course, but I tend to see more of the latter and more denial about the latter. When you're burning time fighting tools it's obvious. When you're burning time because you don't know how a tool could have saved you time, it's less obvious.

YMMV.

replies(1): >>42148481 #
4. PontifexMinimus ◴[15 Nov 24 16:38 UTC] No.42148481{3}[source]▶
> the ability to isolate areas of functionality

This is the key. You need to be able to narrow down where the bug is.