4 ms·
> they're forced to do this Figuratively speaking. None of the languages they test enforce any unit testing. What I'm suggesting is that since the Ruby communi
by robbrit 7y ago
> they're forced to do this
Figuratively speaking. None of the languages they test enforce any unit testing. What I'm suggesting is that since the Ruby community tends to be more obsessive about testing, that might lead to an improvement in code quality when comparing against other similar languages like PHP or JS which are less obsessive about testing. It's something you might have to control for to see the impact.
Type systems are a completely different factor; you'd have to control for that variable too to determine the impact of it. My experience with both systems makes me predict that static typing would improve code quality, but if you want to actually be scientific you'd want to add that factor to the statistical analysis to see if the data support that hypothesis. Anecdotes like personal experience don't count.
- stcredzero 7y agoFiguratively speaking. None of the languages they test enforce any unit testing. The trivial type-mistake "Unhandled Exceptions" in Smalltalk would leak out more often than was comfortable, if the project didn't have a good means of testing to catch those. I suspect that has something to do with the Ruby community being more obsessive about testing.
- igouy 7y ago> "Unhandled Exceptions" in Smalltalk ? MessageNotUnderstood
- stcredzero 7y agoRight. This, and many others, would result in an "Unhandled Exception" notifier dialog in many versions of Smalltalk. I used to work for the company acting as the vendor of 2 (3?) commercial Smalltalks, also doing consulting work for others.