Op 2005-10-05, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> This is naive. Testing doesn't guarantee anything. If this is what you >> think about testing, then testing gives you a false impression of >> security. Maybe we should drop testing. > > Typechecking is done by a reduced lamda calculus (System F, which is > ML-Style), whereas testing has the full power of a turing complete > language. So _if_ one has to be dropped, it would certainly be > typechecking.
Sure, But allow me this silly analogy. Going out on a full test-drive will also reveal your tires are flat. So if you one has to be dropped, a full test drive or a tire check it would certainly be the tired check. But IMO the tire check is still usefull. > Additionally, testing gives you the added benefit of actually using your > decelared APIs - which serves documentation purposes as well as > securing your design decisions, as you might discover bad design while > actually writing testcases. Hey, I'm all for testing. I never suggested testing should be dropped for declarations > Besides that, the false warm feeling of security a successful > compilation run has given many developers made them check untested and > actually broken code into the VCS. I've seen that _very_ often! And the > _only_ thinng that prevents us from doing so is to enforce tests. I wonder how experienced are these programmers? I know I had this feeling when I started at the univeristy, but before I left I already wrote my programs in rather small pieces that were tested before moving on. > But > these are more naturally done in python (or similar languages) as every > programmer knows "unless the program run sucsessfully, I can't say > anything about it" than in a statically typed language where the > programmer argues "hey, it compiled, it should work!" Again I do have to wonder about how experienced these programmers are. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
