4 ms·
Interesting that you mention dynamic languages. I think that a lot of why people do TDD is that you can't reliably know if a program in a dynamic language has b
by shubb 9y ago
Interesting that you mention dynamic languages. I think that a lot of why people do TDD is that you can't reliably know if a program in a dynamic language has basic issues unless you run it.
The same is partially true for manual memory managed languages.
You need to push towards 100% coverage in order to replicate the advantage you get in a statically typed language like Rust.
- weberc2 9y agoYes, the better static analysis you have, the less you need to depend on runtime checks, but Rust makes a lot of tradeoffs which ultimately make it a poor choice for most application development (steep learning curve notwithstanding). There's a whole suite of static functional languages that give you the same strong static guarantees, but without the headaches of borrow checkers, lifetimes, boxes, etc, etc. Beyond that, there is Go which gives you some rudimentary static typing (a 99% improvement over dynamic languages), world-class tooling, a great deploy story, etc. In my mind, Go is the sweet spot for the demands of modern application development.