On 24 October 2013 15:40, Philippe Marschall <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On 24.10.13 15:24, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall
>> <philippe.marschall@netcetera.**ch <[email protected]>
>> <mailto:philippe.marschall@**netcetera.ch<[email protected]>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>>
>>         see my long explanation here
>>         
>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/__**default.asp?11876#87218<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/__default.asp?11876#87218>
>>
>>         
>> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/**default.asp?11876#87218<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218>
>> >
>>         it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a
>>         failing assertion.
>>
>>
>>     This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any
>>     more flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make
>>     the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any
>>     smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system
>>     any easier to maintain. This doesn't make life easier for anybody
>>     developing Pharo or using Pharo. This doesn't improve Pharo in any
>> way.
>>
>>     This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing
>>     code.
>>
>>     If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right
>>     solution IMHO is to write a SLint rule.
>>
>>
>> Running SLint over tests? I could agree the working code should be
>> checked for rules.. but tests?
>>
>
> Yes. Test should have the same quality standards as the rest of the code
> because you'll have to maintain them just the same. Our tests have to be
> portable like the rest of our code.
>
>
Well, if you putting such high quality standards on Seaside, then logically
i would expect more understanding from your side that people here also want
to have
quality standards for Pharo as well. And this issue with #shouldn't lies
exactly in this plane.
Because rephrasing you, running SLint on tests << doesn't make the system
any
    smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system
    any easier to maintain.>>
 :)

Cheers
> Philippe
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Reply via email to