Timeline for Why doesn't "object reference not set to an instance of an object" tell us which object?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2013 at 17:14 | comment | added | Cromulent | @jgauffin I'm saying if you have a choice then go with the debugger in preference to other tools. Of course if you don't have that choice then it is a bit of a non-starter. Clearly this is not the case with this question which is why I gave the answer I did. If the question had been how do you fix this issue on a clients computer with no way to do remote debugging (or local debugging) my answer would have been different. You seem to be trying to warp my answer in ways which have no relevance to the question at hand. | |
| Feb 20, 2013 at 12:17 | comment | added | jgauffin | So you are saying that we always have access to the failing computer and that debugging is better than unit tests? | |
| Feb 20, 2013 at 12:11 | comment | added | Cromulent | @jgauffin I'm saying that you can use a debugger to see why an exception is being thrown in real world code rather than synthetic unit tests that might not actually fully test the code in question or the unit tests themselves may have bugs in which causes them to miss bugs in the real code. A debugger trumps just about any other tool I can think of (except perhaps things like Valgrind or DTrace). | |
| Feb 20, 2013 at 11:54 | comment | added | jgauffin | So you are saying that all exceptions can easily be reproduced when using a debugger? | |
| Oct 26, 2012 at 11:57 | history | answered | Cromulent | CC BY-SA 3.0 |