I guess I fall more to the "reason about code" side of the scale rather than "testing the code" side. Testing seem to induce false hopes about finding all defects even to the point where the tester is blamed for not finding a bug rather than the developer for introducing it.
[Bardur] > It's definitely a valid point, but isn't that an argument *for* testing > for preformance regressions rather than *against* compiler optimizations? We could test for regressions and pass. Then upgrade to a new version of compiler and test would no longer pass. And vice versa. Maybe that's your point too. :) [Iustin] > Surely there will be a canary > period, parallel running of the old and new system, etc.? Is that common? I have not seen it and I do think my workplace is a rather typical one. Also, would we really want to preserve the old "bad" code just because it happened to trigger some optimization? Don't get me wrong, I am all for compiler optimizations and the benefits they bring as well as testing. Just highlighting some potential downsides. Regards /Johan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
