> Defining specifications of every subset/union/intersection, and then redundantly stating the semantic of each key is both an antipattern and unworkable in the

> Defining specifications of every subset/union/intersection, and then redundantly stating the semantic of each key is both an antipattern and unworkable in the most dynamic cases. This is the reason I haven't jumped on the Schema bandwagon. Surprised to see I'm not the only one who had reservations about it. > Finally, in all languages, dynamic or not, tests are essential to quality. Too many critical properties are not captured by common type systems. Glad to see some acknowledgement of the need for at least some tests from Rich, who previously critized TDD, saying that you don't keep a car on the road by banging into the guardrails, and advocated H(ammock)DD. > But manual testing has a very low effectiveness/effort ratio. Property-based, generative testing, as implemented for Clojure in test.check, has proved to be far more powerful than manually written tests. (Assuming by manual testing he means manually writing automated tests,) I can't help but wonder if he came to that conclusion by writing the wrong tests and, naturally, finding them unhelpful. > Enable and start a dialog about semantic change and compatibility Okay, slightly rant-y tangent, but out of all the fluff phrases and buzzwords I've ever heard, "start a dialog" is probably the worst offender, and I wish it was wiped from the English language. > I hope you find spec useful and powerful. Looks useful so far. But where's the Github repo? Or is it coming in the next version of Clojure? Or, like, how/when can we use it?