All means are fair except solving the problem
21 points by akkartik 3 days ago | 16 comments

anyfoo 5 minutes ago
Does no one know what exit codes and stderr vs. stdout is anymore?

I work with old and new code bases used by many clients in complicated setups, but adding a warning to stderr while stdout was left untouched, and proper exit codes maintained, was hardly, if ever, a problem so far.

reply
linkregister 2 hours ago
It's POSIX convention to write to stderr for anything that's not strict program output. I have seen 2>&1 far too often in scripts. I don't worry about it and happily write error messages to stderr whenever my scripts exit without a 0 status code.
reply
ryandrake 32 minutes ago
Another thing that gets screwed up a lot is: Comand line usage help/information should be printed to stderr if it was invoked because the user passed an invalid option to the command line, but it should be printed to stdout if the user invoked the application with -h, --help or similar. Reasons:

1. If you mess up the command line to the program in a script or pipe, and get a bunch of usage output in stdout, a downstream consumer of that stdout might think its legit program output and try to parse it.

2. If your user actually calls the program with -h or --help, they might want to |less through it to read it on a small terminal screen. Output that to stdout.

3. Generally, you can always tell if something is going wrong by grepping for errors or warnings a single stream (stderr), or by looking for a nonzero exit code.

But your general principle applies: Output expected by the user -> stdout. Output incidental to the program's operation or errors -> stderr.

reply
anyfoo 2 minutes ago
Disagree. stdout is only reserved for actual processed command output. It may be empty, it may be invalid because the input was invalid (shit in, shit out), but it may never be things intended for a human to read.

If one wants to use a pager (like I sometimes do, though most of the time I just scroll up), they'll just use `foo 2>&1 | less`.

reply
johnfn 43 minutes ago
But the whole idea is that a warning is a warning. Solving a warning can be deferred, and a warning doesn't cause execution to fail. Your warning was transmuting itself into an error. I feel like "All means are fair except solving the problem" is the wrong conclusion to draw here. If it should have been solved immediately, it should have been an error in the first place. (And then you should have politely bumped the version so that you don't immediately break the code of all your dependents.) If there is no need to solve it immediately, then "all means are fair" to convert it back to a warning as was originally intended.
reply
asdfasgasdgasdg 4 minutes ago
The warning was only "transmuting" itself into an error because another team took a dependency in their test on the exact ordering of writes of certain data to a globally shared resource.
reply
PaulHoule 3 days ago
Aren't you supposed to return a 0 status code when "yea done!" and some other status code when it wasn't done?
reply
yosefk 2 days ago
Indeed you're supposed to, but that way if someone calls exit(0), it looks like the program worked fine, when in fact they committed some debug code and made the program no longer run to completion. "Yay, done" was put in for the scripts to flag this sort of thing, presumably based on experience.
reply
kubb 2 hours ago
"People deliberately misuse the very mechanism that was designed to indicate successful completion, so we added another, flawed detection mechanism based on IO, because there's no way they'll do the thing that they should have learned in the first year of school, and just call exit with any other argument than 0 on irregular completion".

Gosh I thought the engineering culture was bad where I work.

reply
ryandrake 39 minutes ago
Yea, whatever you do, don't solve the actual problem! This reminds me of solving a buffer overflow by just blindly increasing the size of the buffer until it no longer crashes.
reply
roughly 40 minutes ago
Brother, have I got bad news for you about all the places outside your door.
reply
PaulHoule 2 days ago
I can say up until 2005 or so I was a real believer in printf() debugging but I deliberately switched to using a debugger as much as possible around that time. I found that no matter how hard people "try" if they modifying the code to do debugging there is some chance these get checked in -- whereas you can investigate many things with the debugger without checking anything it.

Some applications have more trouble with setup and teardown than others. Like I knew a professor who kept sending me C programs that would crash before main() and some systems have a lot of trouble with "crash on shutdown" which might be a problem (corrupted files) or a non-problem.

reply
quietbritishjim 49 minutes ago
> I was a real believer in printf() debugging but I deliberately switched to using a debugger

This really does not need to be an either/or. They have different uses. You can stick in 20 printfs and get a quick feel for where the bug is far quicker than stepping through the code - especially if you set a breakpoint and hit run, only to realise that you've overshot. You can run the program 10 times with different parameters and compare the results with printf much more easily than you could with a debugger. But, once you've found the rough area, a debugger is much better for fine grained inspection, and especially interrogating state with carefully written watches.

I do get your point about the risk of leaving in some trace by accident. But it feels like overkill to throw away such a valuable tool just because of that.

reply
XorNot 2 hours ago
We still seem to have fairly bad tooling for advanced debugging use cases.

There's no good reason you shouldn't be able to have an IDE maintain a text overlay of debugging points which is solely supplied as breakpoint scripts to the debugger instead.

IDEs seem to conk out at click to set breakpoint.

reply
potbelly83 8 minutes ago
Why not have the program touch a file on success?
reply
chadgpt2 14 minutes ago
Was this FOSS or commercial?

If it's commercial software, you're paid to make it work, no matter how stupid that may be.

If it's FOSS, you can tell the user to deal with it and close the ticket.

reply