>If you're doing well without unit tests and folk generally seem to be happy, then good on you. Unit tests are a pain to write. I'd suggest that you might be se

>If you're doing well without unit tests and folk generally seem to be happy, then good on you. Unit tests are a pain to write. I'd suggest that you might be severely limiting your full potential as a software developer, though. Maybe it's you who hasn't taken the red pill. Safety critical software would be even more safe if you used formal methods. Formal methods verify logic to a degree of 100% while integration tests dig out unintended side effects or leakage. Let me put it another way. In Computer science there's a field called formal methods. With formal methods it's possible to do things like dependent typing. These techniques and technologies can verify your program to 100% correctness. This is not unit testing to correlate correctness to a certain degree but actual 100% verification. Such a technique has pitfalls in the sense that it is brutally hard. I am saying that there are programming methodologies that can be used to go above standard typing and below dependent typing where the program is not verified to 100% correctness but the correlation of correctness is so high that you can forego unit tests. Some languages like Haskell and Rust already sort of enforce these programming methodologies / technologies on you such that most unit tests become redundant. You need a lot less unit tests for a haskell program than you do for javascript. Therefore a program that relies to heavily on unit tests is a sign that the programming methodology is flawed. Something is wrong.