On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that this is just another
article
about his language of preference and how any other language he
tried
doesn't have X or Y or Z. and those X, Y and Z are something
like "not
being on market for long enough", "vendor ACME didn't ported
ACMElib to
it", "out staff is trained in G but not in M" and so on.
boring.
From the article:
"Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that people introduce most
often aren’t the kind of bugs that unit tests catch. With few
exceptions (such as parsers), unit tests are a waste of time."
Not my experience with unittests, repeated over decades and
with different languages. Unit tests are a huge win, even with
statically typed languages.
Yes, but they cannot test everything. GUI code is specially ugly
as it requires UI automation tooling.
They do exist, but only enterprise customers are willing to pay
for it.
This is why WPF has UI automation built-in.
The biggest problem with unit tests are managers that want to see
shiny reports, like those produced by tools like Sonar.
Teams than spend ridiculous amount of time writing superfluous
unit tests just to match milestone targets.
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are testing
what they should. But if they reach the magical percentage number
then everyone is happy.
--
Paulo
