3 ms·
If I am understanding correctly, he is saying that well-written code requires fewer tests in order to be fully tested. Fully tested is better than untested, as
by MereInterest 10y ago
If I am understanding correctly, he is saying that well-written code requires fewer tests in order to be fully tested. Fully tested is better than untested, assuming that code is fully tested, well written code will require fewer tests.
That is my understanding, as it is rather hard to extract a solid argument from his posts.
- ZeroGravitas 10y agoHe specifies "any tests", as do several other anti-test posts in this discussion, though often someone will reply to them and assume, like you have done, that they have another complex set of automated tests that they're happy about, and they're only railing against some unspecified subset of automated tests. I'm not sure if that's being over-charitable or not.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- scottschulthess 10y agoNot writing tests is a great way to ensure future developers won't refactor your code
- MereInterest 10y agoOh I completely agree, and would much rather be working on a codebase with too many unit tests than too few. I'm trying to come up with the most charitable explaining that I can.