Bob La Quey wrote:
On 10/24/07, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something about actually seeing a mountain of unit tests seems to scare
off the cowboy coders.
-a
This sounds true to me. I suspect is is also true though
that a mountain of unit tests can be a giant pile of shit that
enforces a poor solution to a problem.
Have you seen this? This is a problem that I have *never* seen. Not once.
It's hard to enforce a particular solution through unit tests.
Anyone writing a unit test that isn't working for some company has
motivation to do so.
Even inside a company, by defining unit testing as:
1) You may not break any other unit tests.
2) You need to write the unit test, and it must fail on the old code.
3) You need to fix *only the code* and it must now pass the unit test
It really cuts to the meat of coding.
Besides, unit tests let the programmer tell me *exactly* what defines
"correct" code. The programmer has to define "correct" in some way.
What better way than in code?
It's not like programmers would prefer that I make them define correct
by writing documentation.
At least half the time I will go with the cowboys.
Sorry. Pass.
No unit tests, no dice.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
