It's worth pointing out that nobody on this list is criticising the value of unit testing, integration testing, load testing, pair programming, code review, documentation, or any other technique demonstrated help with maintainability and catching defects.
But... given that we use all these techniques, and that they're known to be more effective in combination, why then argue that type checking/static analysis is somehow unique in its ability to be superseded by the others? Nobody would claim that formal code review obviates the benefits of pair programming. Why, then, is it more acceptable to claim that unit testing can effectively replace static typing? On Jul 31, 2012 8:23 AM, "Russel Winder" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 10:41 +0100, Kevin Wright wrote: > > Unit testing *cannot* prove correctness by itself, try this for a thought > > experiment: > > This argument is only really useful in this debate if statically typed > codes need no unit tests at all in order to provably correct. Reality is > that all codes need to have unit, integration and system tests, so the > above becomes just a truth for all software development. > > -- > Russel. > > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
