On 20 February 2012 19:59, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 February 2012 20:41, Guido Stepken <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 20.02.2012 10:22, schrieb Edgar J. De Cleene: >> >> Yesterday in a response to Craig I said have a Cuis with a wiki on top and >> this .image is 5 mb and run on a “modern” G4 400 mhz PowerMac. >> >> That’s is a beauty and the power of Cuis, thanks Juan for your reduced image >> of 2 mb >> >> >> Looks nice. >> >> World menu -> appearance -> set desktop color -> Error >> >> What i - never ever - understand is, why - when Smalltalk is a reflective >> language and there are so mighty tools - like Moose - out there, able to >> search the whole codebase for possible occurrences of "message not >> understood"????? > > If you would learn smalltalk, you would understand that there's no such tool. > It could search, and even may found some, but still it impossible to find all. > This is the main difference between late-bound dynamic language and > static, compiled one. > > To deal with stupid errors like that, smalltalk uses tests with good > code coverage. > But that means that someone has to write them.
Even 100% code coverage - and I mean per branch, not per method - is insufficient to prevent an MNU. Even if your code is perfect, someone can throw something random into your neat library, and hey presto! And we all know this, and choose the possibility of MNUs because dynamic typing meets our needs. frank >> This is no personal quality problem, this is a methodical problem. In the >> whole Pharo team. "Wrong development process!" >> > Yes, we know. DRY. > If there's no test, it won't magically appear even if you have right > development process, unless someone will write it. Flaming on mailing > list doesn't helps either way. > >> Please, again: "Develop the development process!" >> >> Have fun, Guido Stepken > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >
