3 ms·
Manual testing is way slower than automated testing. It’s entirely a matter of perspective. I consider writing a unit test to do something the compiler could c
by goatinaboat 7y ago
Manual testing is way slower than automated testing.
It’s entirely a matter of perspective. I consider writing a unit test to do something the compiler could check for you if you were using a statically-typed language to be “manual testing”.
- AstralStorm 7y agoManual testing is where you click buttons on a device and observe results. Even that can be automated most of the time. Pointless unit testing is a separate thing.
- jacques_chester 7y agoI feel this is an unintentional false dichotomy caused by the name "test-driven". An alternative might be automatic-verification-driven or something like it. Basically I want the computer to automatically point out errors, and I want to prove that it will do so by prompting that error detection first. Whether that's by types or test cases is secondary. Personally I prefer types to test cases for many purposes (a good type system sweeps away a lot of toil in my experience), but I will use whatever tools a given ecosystem gives me in the mix that makes sense for that ecosystem.