Striving for 100% coverage is an expensive mistake because as a testing indicator it gives you a false sense of security. But someone has to pay for the time sp

Striving for 100% coverage is an expensive mistake because as a testing indicator it gives you a false sense of security. But someone has to pay for the time spent writing and maintaining those tests, and fixing the bugs that are still there. I much prefer to use code coverage as a weak indicator for finding dead code.