Skip to main content
The 2024 Developer Survey results are live! See the results

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 4
    +1 for divide and conquer. Accepted for specification of description, tracking back, and mechanisms to divide and conquer the problem. Commented Mar 20, 2011 at 20:31
  • 5
    +1 Brilliant answer. Only thing to add is this: Test your assumptions
    – Bevan
    Commented Mar 20, 2011 at 22:48
  • how about "change one thing at a time"? Commented Mar 21, 2011 at 11:27
  • 2
    @Florenz: Well, by dividing you either take them one by one (for a small number, or when you can't base yourself on multiple causes) or you split them up (for a larger number, when you can check multiple things at once. Splitting up in halfs, if possible, is faster than doing them one by one. For example, to troubleshoot 100 things you only need to test it 8 times (100->50->25->13->7->4->2->1), instead of 100 times... Commented Mar 21, 2011 at 14:21
  • 2
    sensible division! What I meant to say is "don't fix stuff faster than you can attribute a change to an observed delta". Using a lab book with pages I can't tear out is my method to ensure I can do it. Commented Mar 21, 2011 at 16:33