The statement *"This argument is only really useful in this debate if statically typed* *codes need no unit tests at all in order to provably correct."*
led me to believe that you thought I was advocating static analysis IN PLACE of unit tests. Which would be a silly thing for me to advocate. My apologies for misunderstanding your intent here. On 31 July 2012 09:03, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:48 +0100, Kevin Wright wrote: > […] > > 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 analysis is somehow unique in its ability to be superseded by the others? > > I wasn't. > > > 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? > > I didn't. > > I am not sure I am up for repeating my argument from earlier emails. > Tweet version (aka tl;dr) > > Statically compiled and dynamically compiled languages are different and > have to used with different mind sets. > > -- 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.
