Home Original page

raise None

Rustom Mody rustompmody at gmail.com
Sun Jan 3 23:46:29 EST 2016 
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 9:02:16 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Rustom Mody  wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 9:05:58 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> But I think it is a real issue. I believe in beautiful tracebacks that give
> >> you just the right amount of information, neither too little nor two much.
> >> Debugging is hard enough with being given more information than you need
> >> and having to decide what bits to ignore and which are important.
> >
> >
> > It would be nice if the tutorial (FAQ? Lang-Ref??) had a section on how to wade tracebacks
> 
> Hmm, I don't think that's a language reference question. It's more
> something that I would put into a series of blog posts. But I agree -
> this is a great topic to discuss. Ultimately, debugging consists of
> two things: find out more about what's going on, and dig through the
> data from the first step to figure out what's significant. Tips for
> helping people master either half of that are well worth publishing.

Its one of the great paradoxes of programming pedagogy:
- Everyone who talks programs by default talks right programs
- Everyone who writes programs by default writes wrong programs

And if you dont believe that, tell me after having taught programming for 30 odd years :-)
More information about the Python-list mailing list