On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 22:42:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 20:47:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
LOL. I finally got some bugs sorted out on the project that
I'm working on at work (in C++), which means that I can get
back to what I was working on implementing before, and about
all I recall for sure is that I was working on the unit tests
for it. I don't know where I was with them. I find myself
wishing that I had -cov so that I could figure out what I had
left to test... :(
It often seems like the advantages of some of D's features are
more obvious when you have to go back to another language like
C++ which doesn't have them.
What do you dislike about C++ coverage tooling in comparison
with D's?
To get code coverage in C++, I'd have to go track down a tool to
do it. There is none which is used as part of our normal build
process at work. As it is, we only have unit tests because I went
and added what was needed to write them and have been writing
them. No one else has been writing them, and if I want any kind
of code coverage stuff set up, I'd have to go spend the time to
figure it out. With D, it's all built-in, and I don't have to
figure out which tools to use or write any of them myself -
either for unit testing or code coverage. They're just there and
ready to go.
- Jonathan M Davis
