In <cae1xxde74ruwarz2_7t1x3qlccv8fykjrb5gqjawnlbasts...@mail.gmail.com>, on 06/03/2013 at 11:52 AM, John Gilmore <jwgli...@gmail.com> said:
>Something akin to regression testing is of course inescapable; but >comprehensive unit testing of new subroutines is better and, like >liquor, quicker. One needs to be alerted to discrepancies, but one >also needs to remember that many things are done wrong in old code. That is analogous to claiming that air is better than water, or a hammer better than a screwdriver. Unit testing is not better yhan unit testing of new routines, it is different. Both are necessary. There is a role for all of Unit testing of new routines Unit testing of old routines after changes, and accumulating a libraty of regression tests for futute changes. Integration testing, including a suite of regression tests. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN