3 ms·
Short answer: Yes, I am, including without testing. For several years I ran a challenge for exactly this question. I have a test harness and test suite, and wo
by RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Short answer: Yes, I am, including without testing.
For several years I ran a challenge for exactly this question. I have a test harness and test suite, and would run people's programs through it. Roughly 1 in 30 or 40 of those submitted without testing (self-certified) would pass all the tests. Those who tested before submission passed about 1 time in 3.
The vitriol heaped on me was quite unbelievable, and in one case led to concerns for my physical safety. People who had decided to try the challenge then rounded on me and said it was unfair, unreasonable and unrealistic. I didn't affect the results - the vast, vast majority of people simply could not write a binary search that passed my test suite.
FWIW, my first attempt had exactly one problem, to the best of my knowledge. I decided to derive my code formally from the specification. The mistake concerned computer arithmetic, not the algorithm, and was the one lunk to from the article.
But my background is unusual.
- raganwald 17y ago> Those who tested before submission passed about 1 time in 3 "Programmers are not to be measured by their ingenuity and their logic but by the completeness of their case analysis." --Alan Perlis
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoI would add - and their completeness in testing the correct implementation of those cases, and the correctness of the implementation.
- queensnake 17y ago'lunk' - a word is coined!
- whimsy 17y agoEh? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lunkhead http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lunkhead http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lunk http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lunk Google has 346K results.