Sometimes I look at the bug database, pick up the next highest priority bug, have zero idea what the problem may be, sometimes there isn't any screenshots and the description is worded so poorly it is hard to make sense of. So I follow the repro steps, which perhaps take 15 minutes and trigger the issue.

After that I may pause execution and examine some variables and work out what is wrong. From there I need to work out what has caused this to go wrong, perhaps a hardware breakpoint and reloading part of the scene will help.

From doing that may be I see what triggers the hardware breakpoint, a for loop not ending correctly or taking too long to end.

With edit and continue it maybe possible to make the fix, trigger the function again and close the bug. Without it may require a compile, link and the 15 minutes of repro steps.

So edit and continue can massively cut down the amount of time required to fix a bug.

It seems really weird it would be described as amateur or not professional. As usual I suspect it is part of the trend of making everything black and white rather than looking at things on a case by case basis.

Sure if some maths needs to be solved to fix a collision bug when the use is drawing a line on the screen, I would work out the maths and make sure the function is right. But if the maths is right or I don't know what is causing the issue, edit and continue is just another tool for fast and efficient debugging.

In my opinion...