It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
--
Russel.
==
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more general in reality.
A fun read, and I see his POV. It is a pity Python does not
include some static typing, but I think he undervalues the acce
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/wr
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:12:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more general in reality.
A fun read, and I see his POV. It is a pity Python
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:25:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
I rather pay for just one instance.
That depends. What makes Go and Python attractive on AppEngine is
the fast spin up time, you only pay for 15 minutes, and it scales
up to 100 instances transparently. With java you need multi
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:40:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:25:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
I rather pay for just one instance.
That depends. What makes Go and Python attractive on AppEngine
is the fast spin up time, you only pay for 15 minutes,
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 15:04:44 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:40:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
PyPy has now 10 year of research spent into it, and it still
doesn't support all Python features.
Armin Rigo is a smart guy, but well, some things are
On 12/4/14, 10:47 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everythin
On 12/4/14, 2:11 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/4/14, 10:47 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.tea
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/wr
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:12:48 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Twitter has some real value for the humanity.
( /me eats his cigarette )
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:47:53 +
Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
> general in reality. This stood out for me:
>
>
> !…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
>
>
> http://www.teamten.com/lawrenc
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/wr
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that this is just another article
about his language of preference and how any other language he tried
doesn't have X or Y or Z. and those
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/wr
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that this is just another
article
about his language of preference and ho
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 18:24:26 -0800
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
> > i didn't read the article, but i bet that this is just another article
> > about his languag
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
> > more
> > general in reality. This stood out for me:
> >
> >
> > !…ot
On 12/4/2014 6:47 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
and what i also can't grok is "test-driven developement". ah, we spent
alot of time writing that tests that we can't even run 'cause we didn't
start working on the actual code yet. it's splendid! we didn't start
the real work yet and we are al
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:03:59 -0800
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/4/2014 6:47 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > and what i also can't grok is "test-driven developement". ah, we spent
> > alot of time writing that tests that we can't even run 'cause we didn't
> > start workin
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and proven.
Go is still working on finding the right GC solution.
There are quite a few companies using Go in production.
-S.
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and
proven. Go is still working on finding the right GC solution.
There are quite a few companies using Go in
Well, his choice may make sense, but I see no connection between
pet projects and proprietary paid work. They can't share code.
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:22:03 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Well, his choice may make sense, but I see no connection between
> pet projects and proprietary paid work. They can't share code.
hm. but they can. my proprietary paid projects sharing alot of code
with my hobby projects. it's
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:34:18 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
'cause it's much easier to simply use tested and familiar
library than to write brand new one.
Why not? There are always things to improve.
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:41:57 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:34:18 UTC, ketmar via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > 'cause it's much easier to simply use tested and familiar
> > library than to write brand new one.
>
> Why not? There are always things to imp
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:47:51 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
yes, i know about doxygen, unittesting frameworks and so on.
somehow
they never works for me. "ah, those tools are second class
citizens,
i'll do 'em favor later." of course, that "later" means "never"
most of
the time
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:56:42 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:47:51 UTC, ketmar via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > yes, i know about doxygen, unittesting frameworks and so on.
> > somehow
> > they never works for me. "ah, those tools are second class
> > ci
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:56:03 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
my customers paying me for making the work done, not for
experimenting and researching.
They pay you to make the work from scratch and they don't care
how you do it.
must here ;-) and mature code. this way everyone i
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:07:23 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:56:03 UTC, ketmar via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > my customers paying me for making the work done, not for
> > experimenting and researching.
>
> They pay you to make the work from scratch and
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and
proven. Go is still working on finding the right GC solution.
There are quite a few companies using Go in
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that this is just another
article
about his language of preference and ho
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 09:27:16 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that this
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:53:10 +
Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Now is the right time to confess. I hardly ever use unit tests
> although it's included (and encouraged) in D. Why? When I write
> new code I "unit test" as I go along, with
>
> debug writefln("result %s", result);
ah, that de
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you
break existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, and the reason why I
write unittests. I work on a fairly complex code base and every
now and then there's a new feature requested. Implementing
features involves several
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you
break existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, and the reason why I
write unittests. I work on a fairly complex code base and every
now and then there'
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:39:07AM +, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
> >From the article:
> >
> >"Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that people introduce most often
> >aren’t the kind of bugs that unit tests catch. W
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
> deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> > Also relevant:
> > http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
> i didn't make it past the c
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:53 +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
> indeed they don't catch bugs, because you only put into unit
> tests what you know (or expect) at a given moment (just like the
> old writefln()). The bugs I, or other people, discover later
> would usually not be caught by
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:03:59PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/4/2014 6:47 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >and what i also can't grok is "test-driven developement". ah, we
> >spent alot of time writing that tests that we can't even run 'cause
> >we didn't start work
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:
I read some comments in D code on github saying "extend unit
test to include XYZ". So it's already been tested, it works and
it will never be added, just like the
We require adding test cases to match Phobos changes not because
it is ne
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:27:15AM +, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
> >From the article:
> >
> >"Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that people introduce most often
> >aren’t the kind of bugs that unit tests catch.
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you break
> existing code.
That's one of the *major* benefits of unittest IMO: prevent regressions.
> But you'll realize that soon enough anyway.
Hahahahah
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 11:53:11 UTC, Chris wrote:
and stuff like this. Stupid? Unprofessional? I don't know. It
works. I once started to write unit tests only to find out that
indeed they don't catch bugs, because you only put into unit
tests what you know (or expect) at a given moment (
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:43:51 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:27:15AM +, Paulo Pinto via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
[...]
you have to hire humans to
sit all day repeating the same sequenc
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:14:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
> Also relevant:
>
http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Develop
On 12/5/14, 8:53 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 09:27:16 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Now is the right time to confess. I hardly ever use unit tests although
it's
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you break
existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, and the reason why I write
unittests. I work on a fairly complex code b
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:03:39 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric
wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when
you break
existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, an
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:06:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:39:07AM +, deadalnix via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
[...]
>From the article:
>
>"Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that pe
On 12/5/14, 12:11 PM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:03:39 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you break
existing code.
That's
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:25:19 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 12:11 PM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:03:39 UTC, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric
wrote:
The good thing about unit
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:53:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
As I said, I'm not against unit tests and I use them where they
make sense (difficult output, not breaking existing tested
code). But I often don't bother with them when they tell me
what I already know.
assert(addNumbers(1,1) == 2);
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:56:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
At my day job, you'd be shocked to know how many times things
flat-out
break in the nastiest, most obvious ways, yet people DO NOT EVEN
NO
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:44:35 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:53:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
As I said, I'm not against unit tests and I use them where
they make sense (difficult output, not breaking existing
tested code). But I often don't bother with them when they
tel
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:49:13 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:56:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
At my day job, you'd be shocked to know how many times things
flat-out
break in th
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:25:19 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This is very true. Specially when mocks come into play,
sometimes test become duplicated code and every time you make
changes in your codebase you have to go and change the expected
behaviour of mocks, which is just tedious and
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:55:22PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:44:35 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> >On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:53:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
> >>
> >>As I said, I'm not against unit tests and I use them where they make
> >>sense (difficult output,
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:11:29PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> be used. All I'm saying is that sometimes unit tests are sold as the
> be all end all anti-bug design.
I'm not sure where you heard that from, but even the name itself should
already have given it away -- it's *unit*
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:57:14PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:49:13 UTC, eles wrote:
> >On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:56:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
> >wrote:
> >>On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >
>
JEE is the evolution of distributed CORBA applications in the
enterprise, with .NET enterprise applications being the
evolution of DCOM.
Both games that C++ lost its place at.
What about zeromq with C++ or even resorting to simple internal
REST protocols. I've yet to see a valid argument tha
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM, via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> For speed... I dunno. In the cloud you can run Python on 10 instances with
> little effort,
>
>
But if a single instance suffices, why would you? Probably not a popular
opinion, but we should think more abo
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 05:12 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
> > deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
> > > Also relevant:
> > > http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Dev
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:52:24PM +, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 05:12 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
> > > deadalnix via Digita
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are testing what they
should. But if they reach the magical percentage number then everyone is happy.
I write unit tests with the goal of exercising every line of code. While one can
argue that that do
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:41:28AM -0800, Ziad Hatahet via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM, via Digitalmars-d <
> digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > For speed... I dunno. In the cloud you can run Python on 10
> > instances with little effort,
> >
> >
> But if a sin
On 12/5/2014 8:36 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As with all things, I'm skeptical of blindly applying some methodology
even when it's not applicable or of questionable benefit.
In general I agree with you, but for unittests a methodology of using it with a
coverage analyzer to ensure
On 12/5/2014 5:41 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As for GUI code, I've always been of the opinion that it should be coded
in such a way as to be fully scriptable. GUI's that can only operate
when given real user input has failed from the start IMO, because not
being scriptable also means
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are
testing what they
should. But if they reach the magical percentage number then
everyone is happy.
I write unit tests with the goal
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:35:50PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/5/2014 8:36 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >As with all things, I'm skeptical of blindly applying some
> >methodology even when it's not applicable or of questionable benefit.
>
> In general I agree
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 18:46:12 UTC, Jonathan wrote:
JEE is the evolution of distributed CORBA applications in the
enterprise, with .NET enterprise applications being the
evolution of DCOM.
Both games that C++ lost its place at.
What about zeromq with C++ or even resorting to simple i
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:44:17PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/5/2014 5:41 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >As for GUI code, I've always been of the opinion that it should be
> >coded in such a way as to be fully scriptable. GUI's that can only
> >operate when gi
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 08:43:02PM +, paulo pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> >>Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are testing what
> >>they should. But if they reach t
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:32:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I agree. It's not just about conservation of resources and
power,
though. It's also about maximizing the utility of our assets and
extending our reach.
If I were a business and I invested $10,000 in servers,
wouldn
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 21:21:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
The only situation where you truly need dedicated servers is
where you have real time requirements, a constant high load or
where you need a lot of RAM because you cannot partition the
dataset.
Btw, in most cases the last
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on."
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/wr
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:08:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and
proven. Go is still working on find
On 12/5/2014 12:53 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
The kind of blind application of methodology I had in mind was more
along the lines of "OK so I'm required to write unittests for
everything, so let's just pad the tests with inane stuff like 1+1==2, or
testing that the function's return
On 12/5/2014 1:01 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 08:43:02PM +, paulo pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
For example, you can have coverage without asserts.
Exactly!!
auto func(...) { ... }
unittest {
auto x = func(...); // wooh
On 12/5/2014 5:26 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As Walter once said:
I've been around long enough to have seen an endless parade of
magic new techniques du jour, most of which purport to remove
the necessity of thought about your programming problem. In the
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:19:46PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12/5/2014 5:26 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >As Walter once said:
> >
> > I've been around long enough to have seen an endless parade of
> > magic new techniques du jour, most of which purport
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:23:00 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Developers need to stop thinking "how is this code supposed to
work"
when it comes to tests and start thinking "how can I break this
code".
It is how testers and QA work, sadly developers all too often
fail to.
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:00:15 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 8:53 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 09:27:16 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Now is t
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:28:36 UTC, Chris wrote:
This is very true. Specially when mocks come into play,
sometimes test become duplicated code and every time you make
changes in your codebase you have to go and change the
expected behaviour of mocks, which is just tedious and useless.
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:55:23 UTC, Chris wrote:
Everywhere? For each function? It may be desirable but hard to
maintain. Also, unit tests break when you change the behavior
of a function, then you have to redesign the unit test for this
particular function. I prefer unit tests for bigg
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:43:03 UTC, paulo pinto wrote:
I imagine you haven't seen unit tests written by off-shore
contractors
For example, you can have coverage without asserts.
Also as a side note, the test framework I use at work raise
warning for test that do not assert anythin
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:43:03 UTC, paulo pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are
testing what they
should. But if they reach the magical percentage num
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are
testing what they
should. But if they reach the magical percentage number then
everyone is happy.
I write unit tests with the goal
On 6/12/2014 5:45 a.m., Dicebot wrote:
In my opinion OOP is very unfriendly for testing as a paradigm in
general. The very necessity to create mocks is usually an alarm.
I really need to start saving quotes. This is definitely a keeper!
On 6/12/2014 11:28 a.m., Freddy wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 03:01:44PM +1300, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 11:28 a.m., Freddy wrote:
> >On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
> >Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit more
> >>general
On 6/12/2014 3:12 p.m., H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 03:01:44PM +1300, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 6/12/2014 11:28 a.m., Freddy wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 03:49:35PM +1300, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 3:12 p.m., H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 03:01:44PM +1300, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> >wrote:
> >>On 6/12/2014 11:28 a.m., Freddy wrote:
[...]
> >>>My prob
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:31:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:43:03 UTC, paulo pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are
testin
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:53:03 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
On 6/12/2014 5:45 a.m., Dicebot wrote:
In my opinion OOP is very unfriendly for testing as a paradigm
in
general. The very necessity to create mocks is usually an
alarm.
I really need to start saving quotes. This is definit
On 12/5/2014 11:54 PM, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:31:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Code review my friend. Nothing gets in without review, and as
won't usually don't enjoy the prospect of having to fix the shit
of a coworker, one ensure that coworker wrote
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:54:32 +
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:31:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> > On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:43:03 UTC, paulo pinto wrote:
> >> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 12/5/201
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 08:36:28 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:54:32 +
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:31:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:43:03 UTC, paulo pinto
> wrote:
>> On Frida
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 08:26:23 UTC, Brad Roberts via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/5/2014 11:54 PM, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Saturday, 6 December 2014 at 01:31:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Code review my friend. Nothing gets in without review, and as
won't usually don't enjoy
Unittests are great to avoid regressions.
Unitests give confidence.
You can do radical changes to your codebase much easier if you
know, that nothing
breaks because of it.
I not a fan of TDD. But I like it that I know directly that there
are no regressions.
1 - 100 of 276 matches
Mail list logo
