On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 00:28:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/24/2015 3:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
D has done a great job of making unit tests the rule, rather
than the exception.
Yeah. I wonder what would happen with some of the folks that I've
worked with who were anti-unit testing if they were programming
in D. It would be more or less shoved in their face at that point
rather than having it in a separate set of code somewhere that
they could ignore, and it would be so easy to put them in there
that it would have to be embarrassing on some level at least if
they didn't write them. But they'd probably still argue against
them and argue that D was stupid for making them so prominent...
:(
I do think that our built-in unit testing facilities are a huge
win for us though. It actually seems kind of silly at this point
that most other languages don't have something similar given how
critical they are to high quality, maintainable code.
We should be ashamed when our code is not as close to 100%
code coverage as is
feasible (which is usually 100%).
Right on, Jonathan!
I must say that this is a rather odd argument to be having
though, since normally I'm having to argue that 100% test
coverage isn't enough rather than that code needs to have 100%
(e.g. how range-based algorithms need to be tested with both
value type ranges and reference type ranges, which doesn't
increase the code coverage at all but does catch bugs with how
save is used, and without that, those bugs won't be caught). So,
having to argue that all code should have 100% code coverage (or
as close to it as is possible anyway) is kind of surreal. I would
have thought that that was a given at this point. The real
question is how far you need to go past that to ensure that your
code works correctly.
- Jonathan M Davis
