4 ms·
Overhead of unit testing is why I'm not a fan of it for personal projects. Testing even the simplest 400 lines of code needed more than 1000 lines of testcode a
by flamethroeaway 10y ago
Overhead of unit testing is why I'm not a fan of it for personal projects. Testing even the simplest 400 lines of code needed more than 1000 lines of testcode and I'm doing as little as possible.
- gaius 10y ago99% of what unit testing does you get "for free" with a strongly-typed language like OCaml. That developers insist on using unsafe languages like Javascript speaks volumes.
- sievebrain 10y ago99% is a way high over-estimate. Yes, strongly statically typed languages eliminate a LOT of potential bugs and I always try to use them. But it's not like they eliminate 99% of all bugs.
- zzzcpan 10y ago> Yes, strongly statically typed languages eliminate a LOT of potential bugs They don't. AFAIK, lines of code is the only known metric with significant correlation with bugs so far. And if you ever wrote anything in a good dynamically typed language, like Perl, you know that its type system never causes any problems.
- gaius 10y agoI didn't say bugs, I said what unit testing does.