🚀 go-pugleaf

> However, the idea that it is impossible to write code without an interactive
> debugger is rubbish. Indeed, using the clean-room approach, it is quite
> practical to write code under conditions where the devlopers do not test
> the code they write AT ALL, let alone fiddle around with interactive
> debuggers.

> Now of course these things are by no means absolute, and given a good
> interactive debugger, there are bugs for which it can be an invaluable
> time saver. However, over-reliance on such tools can lead to a situation
> where programmers are not as productive as they could be, and it is 
> worth listening to Hoare, because that is what he is warning about!

There is one exception here; most real-time programs have to interact
- communicate - with things outside the scope of the system. Now
these are not bug-free. Without writing a zillion lines of code to
exactly nail down what guff they are sending over the interface, an
interactive debugger in the receiving system IS essential - to debug
the C or whatever that is producing the unchecked Crap that you're
trying to digest. A good rule is: if ever you're doing an unchecked
conversion, implicit or explicit, you need a debugger. And Unchecked
Conversion is nearly always essential in I/O ( and nearly always
NOT needed otherwise).