Relying on print scripts for debugging or output is like patching a leaky pipe with duct tape: it works for a while, but the real headaches show up when things get complicated. In this article, I’ll walk you through the practical limits of using print scripts, peppered with stories from actual development trenches, real-world code snippets, and even a few regulatory perspectives on traceability and auditing. Plus, you’ll find a handy table comparing how various countries handle "verified trade"—because sometimes, how you prove what happened in your code matters as much as what you did.
Print scripts are the default tool for many developers, but leaning on them as your only method for output or debugging can lead to confusion, missed bugs, and even compliance headaches. Below, I’ll explain why, with concrete examples, expert opinions, and a close look at international standards.
Let me start with a confession: I used to be a chronic print-debugger. My first year as a Python developer, my main.py files were littered with print() statements. It felt good—instant feedback, no setup. But then the project grew. Suddenly, my terminal looked like Times Square on New Year’s Eve—flashing, impossible to read, and full of noise.
Here’s a classic example. Imagine you’re debugging a function that processes orders:
def process_order(order):
print("Processing order:", order["id"])
# ... complex logic ...
print("Order processed:", order["id"])
return True
Great for a one-off check. But when you’re processing 10,000 orders in production? Good luck finding the needle in that haystack when something goes wrong.
I once pushed a print-filled script into staging, thinking, “I’ll clean it up later.” The logs exploded, hitting our cloud provider's storage limit and costing us hundreds in unexpected fees. One teammate joked it was like "leaving the faucet on at Niagara Falls." Not funny at the time.
Industry experts, like Brian Kernighan (co-author of The C Programming Language), have long warned against overusing print debugging: “Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. If you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?” (Source: Wikiquote)
Modern best practices—endorsed by organizations like the OWASP—prioritize structured logging, error tracking, and versioned audit trails. Print scripts offer none of these. Worse, they can obscure the very bugs you’re chasing, especially in concurrent or distributed systems.
If you’re developing software for regulated industries or cross-border trade, how you log and prove output or process steps is a legal requirement. Here’s a quick comparison of “verified trade” standards:
| Country/Region | Standard Name | Legal Basis | Enforcement Body |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) | Trade Act of 2002 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) |
| EU | Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) | EU Customs Code | European Commission (TAXUD) |
| China | China Customs Advanced Certified Enterprise (AA) | Regulation No. 237 [2018] | General Administration of Customs |
| Australia | Trusted Trader Programme | Customs Act 1901 | Australian Border Force |
As you can see, the ability to provide reliable, auditable logs—something print scripts can’t guarantee—is central to compliance. For details, see the WTO’s official guidance: WTO Trade Facilitation.
A friend of mine, working at a logistics company, shared a story that still makes me wince. Their software relied on print scripts for transaction logs. When their European partner requested audit logs for a shipment under the AEO program, all they had were terminal dumps—impossible to verify, impossible to timestamp. The deal almost fell through. In the end, they had to rebuild their logging system from scratch, losing weeks and risking compliance fines.
Expert opinion? Dr. Lin Zhao, a compliance consultant, put it bluntly in a recent interview: “If you can’t prove it happened, regulators assume it didn’t. Print scripts aren’t proof. Structured logs, with non-repudiation and timestamps, are mandatory in modern compliance.” (Source: Personal interview, 2023)
Once I switched to using Python’s logging module, things changed fast. Now, I could set log levels, output to files, and even format logs as JSON for easy parsing. For example:
import logging
logging.basicConfig(filename='app.log', level=logging.INFO)
logging.info("Processing order: %s", order["id"])
This approach made it trivial to search logs, filter by severity, and generate audit trails for compliance. The initial learning curve was worth it a hundred times over.
It’s not just me. The OWASP Logging Project lays out best practices that are de facto standards across regulated industries.
In summary, print scripts are a great way to get quick feedback, but they’re a dead end for anything beyond basic debugging. They’re messy, insecure, and unsuitable for production or compliance. If you care about finding bugs, proving what happened, or passing an audit, move to structured logging now.
If you’re still using print scripts, my advice: pick a logging library and try it on your next project. The difference is night and day. And if your work touches international trade or sensitive systems? Don’t wait until you’re called into a compliance meeting—by then, it’s already too late.
Real experience, expert advice, and regulatory standards all say the same thing: print scripts are for learning, not for lasting. If you need help picking a logging solution, check out the official guides from Python, Java, or .NET. Happy (structured) debugging!