On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote: >> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written >> for his own education and amusement. The fact is that software in >> general is of abysmal quality across the boards, and promoting a habit >> of unit testing is good, even for trivial, home-grown stuff. > > I thought people were being hard on the OP.
I wasn't being hard on the OP. My observation is about the state of *all* software. My software especially, your software, Microsoft's software. It all is of rather poor quality compared to the rigors of other industries like civil engineering, manufacturing, etc. > As for testing, I remember in a company I worked in, a complicated > circuit was submitted to a company that would put it into a > mass-produced chip. This company did massive numbers of emulated tests > shown on a huge printout that showed that all combinations of inputs and > outputs worked exactly as intended. > > Except the actual chip didn't work. As for the printout, the designer > took it home and used it as an underlay for a new carpet. A rather > expensive underlay. That's unfortunately, but seems to reinforce the notion that adequate testing is required. Clearly for a microchip, theoretically testing the chip's "software" (for lack of a better term) was not adequate. An analogy to our software situation is that someone tested the algorithm, but not the actual, in-use implementation of the algorithm. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
