Poll: Would You Be Interesting in an ESSENTIALS on Debugging?

Debugging might be useful. However, I can't resist posting a link to an Embedded.fm episode with Jack Ganssle: https://embedded.fm/episodes/2014/5/27/53-being-a-grownup-engineer

If you want to his opinion about debugging, head to 22:20 . I recommend hearing the whole episode (and also some others with James Grenning with test driven development approach, to get different opinion).

Ganssle now makes a living out of proposing the absurd.

Even in his opening phrases on debugging he's into the nonsense; suggesting that software is unique in the proportion of time spent debugging.

It isn't, most significant human endeavor involves multiple attempts, prototyping, testing, debugging etc.

I'm not suggesting that it isn't a good idea to try to get things as right as is reasonable, first time - of course it is.

But pretending that proving that some code does what it's specification says it does will solve all software problems (or all problems that can be fixed by software) is just plain daft.

The biggest problem is not addressed by Spark, Ada or much else - and that is getting the specification right.

Look at Boeing's problem with the MAX737, as far as we know the code did what they meant it to do, the problem was that the single sensor was duff.

No amount of proving the code was correct to spec would make any difference. (Other issues noted.)

In the real world people do ask me to make box A talk to box B with no detailed specs of either. We make stuff to do the connecting and debug it.

Just the same as if you asked a builder to put a porch up over your front door, a bit like the one at number 7.

I wouldn't recommend that you use my box interface specced as it was to control a nuke, or the porch as a bomb shelter.

Ganssle's failure is not to grasp that, for an awful lot of stuff, "Good enough" is good enough - but he gets paid for his rants.

That's my rant (nearly) over - debugging is your friend - cherish it !

MK

Ganssle now makes a living out of proposing the absurd.

Even in his opening phrases on debugging he's into the nonsense; suggesting that software is unique in the proportion of time spent debugging.

It isn't, most significant human endeavor involves multiple attempts, prototyping, testing, debugging etc.

I'm not suggesting that it isn't a good idea to try to get things as right as is reasonable, first time - of course it is.

But pretending that proving that some code does what it's specification says it does will solve all software problems (or all problems that can be fixed by software) is just plain daft.

The biggest problem is not addressed by Spark, Ada or much else - and that is getting the specification right.

Look at Boeing's problem with the MAX737, as far as we know the code did what they meant it to do, the problem was that the single sensor was duff.

No amount of proving the code was correct to spec would make any difference. (Other issues noted.)

In the real world people do ask me to make box A talk to box B with no detailed specs of either. We make stuff to do the connecting and debug it.

Just the same as if you asked a builder to put a porch up over your front door, a bit like the one at number 7.

I wouldn't recommend that you use my box interface specced as it was to control a nuke, or the porch as a bomb shelter.

Ganssle's failure is not to grasp that, for an awful lot of stuff, "Good enough" is good enough - but he gets paid for his rants.

That's my rant (nearly) over - debugging is your friend - cherish it !

MK