On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall < philippe.marsch...@netcetera.ch> wrote:
> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: > >> see my long explanation here https://pharo.fogbugz.com/** >> default.asp?11876#87218<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218> >> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing >> assertion. >> > > This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more > flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make the system any > easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, > scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. > This doesn't make life easier for anybody developing Pharo or using Pharo. > This doesn't improve Pharo in any way. > > This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing code. > > If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right solution > IMHO is to write a SLint rule. > > Running SLint over tests? I could agree the working code should be checked for rules.. but tests? Useful, to some pedantic souls i guess , but not me :) But anyways, i agree with you, we should not dictate what is 'best' rules and 'how you should do the coding', we shall let people discover own and let them shoot into their own foot, if they insisting to. > Cheers > Philippe > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
