Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Programming IT Technology

Debugging in Plain English? 274

sameerdesai writes "CNN is carrying a story about Researchers from Carnegie Melon: Myers and a graduate student, Andrew Ko, have developed a debugging program that lets users ask questions about computer errors in plain English: Why didn't a program behave as expected? I guess with recent exploits and bugs that were found this will soon be a hot research topic or tool in the market." We recently did a story about revolutionary debugging techniques; the researchers' website has some papers and other information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debugging in Plain English?

Comments Filter:
  • by lakeland ( 218447 ) <> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @04:59PM (#9815798) Homepage
    A couple years ago I was chatting to someone who developed a program where specs could be written in plain English. Specifically, Rational already has a spec language called controlled English that is simple enough for PHBs to _read_ (but not write, kinda the opposite of APL and perl ;-)

    Anyways, while PHBs cannot write controlled English, they can write English, so this guy treated the problem as human-assisted machine translation. However, it never seemed to take off. *shrug*
  • by kisrael ( 134664 ) * on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:01PM (#9815816) Homepage
    What'll be interesting, if a long way off, is when they get plain English development.

    Now, there's a lot of reasons why this is a tough problem; English is tremendously less precise than a computer language, and a computer would need a GREAT deal of common sense before being able to make good sense of our high level spoken descriptions.

    But many programming tasks are really 95% "lather, rinse, repeat", and we're striving to get Design Patterns in place for much of the rest. It really makes me wonder... ...then again I wonder if it would be fun to make a shell that used something like Infocom's "INFORM" parser...actually, wire that up to some speech recognition, and you'd have something interesting. Not neccesarily super-useful or more effecient than the tried-and-true-UIs, but interesting.

    For the history buffs, I think COBOL was one attempt to bridge spoken "Businessese" and computer code. I don't know a ton about it but I think it might ultimately be an underrated attempt... (for a while, all computers were financial (base 10 for its math, usually) or scientific (binary)...over time, the scientific approach 'won out', probably because it was easier for the scientific side to emulate the business side than vice versa, or maybe because the attention span of geeks is more important than who's writing big checks. Anyway, today's Unix culture is firmly from that scientific tradition, dot com boom not withstanding...

    Thus endeth the less-than-full-assed history lesson and speculation about where this stuff will end up...
  • And this helps how? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:01PM (#9815822)
    The article showed what looked to be a Pac-Man environment which tried to show objects (ghost, dot, pac), a boolean (why did, didn't), and a condition (move toward x). That is a cool idea to enhance debugging with holistic information about objects at a higher level.

    I don't think it'll make as much of an impact in the real world (e.g. replacing "general protection fault" etc) as the article implies. First it seems more to trace a set of known possibilities that happened or not, rather than to catch really unexpected occurances. If a fence post error caused a count to trigger some action an iteration too early that would be a very hard thing to see at an object level even if you were the programmer who could interpret such things. If you were the user whose binaries had been stripped of most debugging info to reduce chances of reverse engineering then you'd have an obtuse error message that probably has no way to recover from the error.

    It's a neat idea, but this doesn't sound like an end user sort of innovation (or anything close to it) as the article portrays.

  • Drink Me, Eat Me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:06PM (#9815874)
    From the pdf on whyline, it seems to work with the Alice language. Alice seems to be very rigid in its design, allowing English lookups (rather like naming variable in English-word format like 'pac_resize').

    This is a more user-friendly version of tools like grep and awk.

    This type of debugger would seem difficult to make in the lower-level program tools without rigid naming conventions. Or else the searching would be on high-level concepts like graphic resizing that would be searched on the language functions that perform the resizing (regardless of data-var name).

    I do have to disagree with their definition of a programmer: "If you've created a spreadsheet, made macros in Excel or Word or used a Web application to fetch news about your hobby or favorite celebrity, you've programmed". Although technically usable in definition, a Word/Excel macroist does not a programmer make.

  • by mdlbear ( 735185 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:27PM (#9816059) Journal
    Back in the last millennium, the early 1970's to be exact, there was a programming system called InterLisp. It had a fantastic error-correction system called DWIM (Do What I Mean), infinite selective undo, and (relevant to this particular post) an English-language query system called InterScope.

    You could ask InterScope questions like "Who calls FOO?" or "What function called by BAR stores into ZOT?". It answered by referring to a pre-computed database. Naturally, this kind of thing was made easier by the fact that LISP programs are represented as LISP data structures.

    One really has to ask whether there's anything really new in The Whyline [] apart from a pretty interface.

  • by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:32PM (#9816105) Homepage
    I do a lot of the embedded system equivalent of a print statement - usually this means a short pulse on a spare output pin. It's not much information, but having a reference marker really helps when staring at a logic analyzer screen...
  • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:38PM (#9816150)
    They tried that years ago. It was called Cobol.

    The problem is that its not an efficient language for dealing with math. Its extra verboseness makes it harder to write and maintain, for very little gain (If a person isn't going to write and fix code, who cares if he can read it?)
  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:45PM (#9816217) Homepage Journal
    I'm not a fan of controlled English systems, because they're misleading. They are computer languages, not natural languages, and people often misunderstand the semantics. They are as exacting to write as code, but more verbose. If the controlled English isn't quite working, it can be intensely difficult to debug.

    I've seen efforts where knowledge representation languages (CycL and Prolog come to mind) are translated into English for validation. That's not a perfect tool, but it's actually not dissimilar from what I do in my mind when I read these languages: translate

    grandparent(X, Y) :- parent(X,Z), parent(Z,Y).


    X is the grandparentof Y if X is the parent of Z and Z is the parent of Y.

    or even:

    Y is X's grandparent if X is Z's parent and Z is Y's parent.

    So you write code, concisely and precisely, and translate it into easier-to-read but less precise English. I'm not sure if this technique has been adapted to "business rule" systems like iLog, but it might work well there.
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:49PM (#9816236)
    . . .but somehow it appears you still have to fork off $30/hr for the workmanship to get it fixed...

    Better yet, pay $40/hr for a real mechanic who knows when the computer is full of shit and fixes what's actually wrong, instead of the $30/hr fly by night trade school grad who fixes what the computer says is wrong, charges you for it, then has to go back and fix what's actually wrong, and charges you for it.

  • by jjeffries ( 17675 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:11PM (#9816421)
    - Why did a radiation therapy machine zap patients with the wrong doses (inconsistent state between GUI display and internal software state)

    Everybody should know all about the Therac 25 []. Interesting reading even if you've never gotten past "hello, world!" in your programming career.

  • Buddha (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jbrandon ( 603700 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:12PM (#9816429)
    Buddha [] is a debugger for Haskell that displays, in a heirarchical fashion, every function call in your program, then lets you declare every function application and result as "Correct, Erroneous, Inadmissible, or Unknown". It can thus track down the error to a particular application of a prticular function.

    Why is it called Buddha? Because otherwise debugging Haskell means just staring at your code until you achieve enlightenment!
  • Silver Bullet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:47PM (#9816766) Homepage Journal
    Real debugging via a humna language (particularly English) is bullshit.
    Unless it's programmed in English. Now what do you call a program in English? A spec. And as Brooks said [], half the problem is debugging the spec.

    He also said that there were no silver bullets, and he said so over twenty years ago. It seems that every few years a generation arises who haven't read him. Put natural language debugging on the pile with case and all the others.

  • by generic-man ( 33649 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:14PM (#9817547) Homepage Journal
    Alice is used by the students of Building Virtual Worlds [] to create 3D VR environments. The students are CMU undergrads in every department from Computer Science to humanities to fine arts.

    I wouldn't consider Alice a "language for children," since 20-something-year-old college students learn it and use it extensively. If you learned C++ in middle school, would you call it a language for children?

    You call CNN "Bad Bad journalism," yet you leap to the wrong conclusion about a language you know nothing about. You mustn't be new here.
  • by wideBlueSkies ( 618979 ) * on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:56PM (#9817835) Journal
    I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

    where is the bug?

    Why do you say where is the bug?

    i need to fix that bug.

    What makes you believe you might want to fix?

    because my program is broken.

    Is it because your program is broken that you came to me?


    I see... Well, are you sure that this is so?

    becasue i have to fix this bug, and you're the debugger

    Earlier you said you would like to fix?

    yes. please tell me where the bug is

    Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

    true. i plan to get this system back into production as soon as i fix the bug.

    Do you really think that?


    Yes, hmmm... so, what makes you think this is so?

    i have a responsibility to fix this program.

    You mentioned that your program is broken?

    yes, you do know that....don't you?

    Does it bother you that do not me?


    Can you elaborate on that?

    i think you need to elaborate.

    How does it feel to want? ...

  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2004 @01:04AM (#9819206)
    Noun group prefixes only helps with ambiguity when you also want to abbreviate. (Omit repeating the noun, because it can be infered by the group prefix on the verb). The only really important ambiguity in natural languages (and it's rare) is the lack of nested parentheses, creating the "He saw her in the park with a telescope".

    Any good English class will demonstrate to you that this is considered to be a grammatical error. It's so similar to a dangling participle that I guess this could be called a "dangling prepositional phrase." It could be better written as "By means of his telescope, he saw her in the park," or "She had her telescope when he saw her in the park," just to name two examples. You're right though that other languages make it harder to be ambiguous. Really though the thing that annoys me most about English is that there is no gender-neutral third person singular (he/she/it) because the only neutral one is not used to describe people, so you hear people say "they" instead.

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall