3 ms·

Agree with this. I like some of his ideas. But a problem I have(possibly of my perception) with uncle Bob is that he gets too aggressive. If you don't have X pe

Agree with this. I like some of his ideas. But a problem I have(possibly of my perception) with uncle Bob is that he gets too aggressive. If you don't have X percent (100%) code coverage, then you are doing it wrong, you are not a craftsman, etc. Well, Dan North put things in perspective a bit- https://dannorth.net/2011/01/11/programming-is-not-a-craft/ https://dannorth.net/2011/01/11/programming-is-not-a-craft/ The problem is dogma. And it keeps repeating. But probably this aggression helps them in their careers. (Not a frequent contributor to comments/ here on HN. Mostly like to read.)

unclebobmartin 9y ago
I have never told people that they must have 100% test coverage. Indeed, I tell them that 100% test coverage is impossible. What you are referring to is a statement I frequently make -- 100% coverage is the goal. It's an asymptotic goal, but it's still the goal. No lesser goal makes any sense.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  But then you can find people saying that type checking has no value because all errors will be caught by the testing you should be doing - I came across someone saying that just a few days ago. I am not sure that 100% can be called an asymptotic goal, given that you cannot even get close, for real systems. Once you recognize this, you can start having a realistic discussion about what you actually will be able to test for, how best to allocate your limited resources, and what other steps you might take to mitigate the consequences of this unfortunate fact. It means that methodologies bassed on extensive testing must justify this use. An additional benefit is that we might be able to discuss what we can do to improve software development without the sort of dogmatic non-sequitur that I mentioned in my first paragraph.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > 100% coverage is the goal. It's an asymptotic goal, but it's still the goal What is a goal then? A maximum? A desirable attribute? I'd argue a fixed percentage target of any kind doesn't make sense, much like measuring productivity by lines of code.

unclebobmartin 9y ago

I have never told people that they must have 100% test coverage. Indeed, I tell them that 100% test coverage is impossible. What you are referring to is a statement I frequently make -- 100% coverage is the goal. It's an asymptotic goal, but it's still the goal. No lesser goal makes any sense.

mannykannot 9y ago
But then you can find people saying that type checking has no value because all errors will be caught by the testing you should be doing - I came across someone saying that just a few days ago. I am not sure that 100% can be called an asymptotic goal, given that you cannot even get close, for real systems. Once you recognize this, you can start having a realistic discussion about what you actually will be able to test for, how best to allocate your limited resources, and what other steps you might take to mitigate the consequences of this unfortunate fact. It means that methodologies bassed on extensive testing must justify this use. An additional benefit is that we might be able to discuss what we can do to improve software development without the sort of dogmatic non-sequitur that I mentioned in my first paragraph.
Chris2048 9y ago
> 100% coverage is the goal. It's an asymptotic goal, but it's still the goal What is a goal then? A maximum? A desirable attribute? I'd argue a fixed percentage target of any kind doesn't make sense, much like measuring productivity by lines of code.