Rust

6022 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

[email protected]

Credits

The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Speeding up the Rust edit-build-run cycle (davidlattimore.github.io)

submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/rust

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] onlinepersona 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

If you’re like many developers and you generally use println for debugging and rarely or never use an actual debugger, then this is wasted time.

I weep for the time lost on debugging with println. Good grief. It's like having access to a time stopping ability and going "nah, I like trying to add a marker and tracing footsteps".

Yes, for multi threaded workloads there aren't many options, but most are single threaded and eschewing a debugger is bonkers to me.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] kahnclusions 2 points 4 days ago

This is always one of the first things I setup on a project and teach or encourage my teams to do… I’m always surprised how many devs would rather use print statements all the time (not just in Rust, but especially JS/TS) when it only takes like 5 minutes to configure the debugger. Maybe 10 minutes if you need to search how to open the debugging port in Chrome/FF.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I have to admit I still readily reach for dbg! to narrow down where the problem is happening (instead of endlessly stepping through), especially in async. But when I do I put in one or two a function and upto one an await. Then I make a breakpoint before that and debug if I didn't find it by just a short look.

[–] BB_C 2 points 5 days ago

for multi threaded workloads there aren’t many options

Anyone who actually writes Rust code knows about tracing my friend.

We also have the ever useful #[track_caller]/Location::caller().

And it's needless to say that dbg!() also exists, which is better than manual printing for quick debugging.

So there exists a range of options setting between simple printing, and having to resort to using gdb/lldb (possibly with rr).

But yes, skipping debugging symbols was a bad suggestion.