961K views · Aug 6, 2022 · 15:20 · 1 HN recommender · 8 mentions · discussed 2022–2025
A clip of John Carmack on the Lex Fridman podcast discussing his programming setup, why he favors debuggers and IDEs, and his puzzlement at developers who avoid them.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN debugger-versus-print-debugging threads point to it as Carmack's authoritative case for using a real debugger.
“This was one of the more interesting parts of John Carmack's interview on Fridman's podcast”HN comment, 2024
“This was one of the more interesting parts of John Carmack's interview on Fridman's podcast”
One of the more interesting parts of the interview.
This was one of the more interesting parts of John Carmack's interview on Fridman's podcast: this video
“John Carmack's[1] suggestion that using a debugger is the best way to program?”
Carmack's suggestion that a debugger is the best way to program.
Thanks for your take. What do you think of John Carmack's[1] suggestion that using a debugger is the best way to program? I am by no means comparing myself to Carmack :-) I find debugger a good way to "see" what the program is doing. But that leads to a lot of time wasted. [1] this video
“drops into a debugger all the time to explore state, understand program behavior, debug things, etc.”
Carmack frequently uses a debugger to explore program state.
Contrasting perspective from John Carmack [1] who drops into a debugger all the time to explore state, understand program behavior, debug things, etc. Looks like there is no universal golden path. Differing environments make different approaches effective. [1] this video
“John Carmack has a pretty different opinion about debuggers”
Carmack's differing opinion on debuggers.
While we're appealing to authority, we should probably note that John Carmack has a pretty different opinion about debuggers: this video
“Carmack talked about it in an interview”
Carmack on graphical debugging.
vim bindings are worth learning, vim/nvim itself is not. Two reasons. One, graphical debugging. Almost every hardcore vim/nvim user I've met has terminal (no pun intended) printf-debugging disease, or uses an IDE on a second monitor. Carmack talked about it in an interview ( this video ) Secondly people, especially with neovim, seem to be hellbent on turning the thing into a GUI editor anyway, with bespoke search interfaces, file tree plugins, graphical plugin installers, and so on. At which point I don't understand why you're not using something made for that purpose rather than painfully try to reinvent it in a piece of software designed to output text
“There's a section of an interview with John Carmack”
Carmack laments avoidance of graphical debuggers.
Print debugging is a disaster. If there's one widespread practice among non-beginner developers that wastes hours of time it's print debugging. I honestly can't tell how often I have seen people, even experienced programmers (usually because they insist on running some bespoke vim setup) refuse to use a graphical debugger to actually step through a program, and instead they spend hours hunting down bugs they could have found in ten minutes. There's a section of an interview with John Carmack ( this video ) where he laments the same thing. It's what the Windows/game development corner of the programming world actually got right, people generally use effective tools for software development.
“It still boggles my mind how hostile to debuggers and IDEs Silicon Valley VC- backed companies are”
Carmack on hostility to debuggers and IDEs.
John Carmack: It still boggles my mind how hostile to debuggers and IDEs Silicon Valley VC- backed companies are this video
“He's baffled why people are so allergic to debuggers”
Carmack baffled by people allergic to debuggers.
Don't show the discussion to John Carmack. He's baffled why people are so allergic to debuggers: this video
