3 ms·

I was going to write almost the exact same response. It's like someone saying, "I stopped writing tests. Reduced the LOC by half. And with no tests, we actual

I was going to write almost the exact same response. It's like someone saying, "I stopped writing tests. Reduced the LOC by half. And with no tests, we actually find fewer bugs!"

smackfu 15y ago
"I stopped writing null checks, because they just added LOC and that increases the number of bugs."
- icebraining 15y ago
  That would've been true, if it meant the author had switch to a language without null references. http://qconlondon.com/london-2009/presentation/Null+References:+The+Billion+Dollar+Mistake http://qconlondon.com/london-2009/presentation/Null+Referenc...
danenania 15y ago
"I stopped writing tests. Reduced the LOC by half. And with no tests, we actually find fewer bugs!" This can be true to an extent. Tests are a tradeoff that can potentially give you better stability, yes, but at the cost of more development time, longer builds, costlier maintenance, and more surface area for bugs. Like types, tests are appropriate in some cases, overkill in others. Imo, a lot of web functionality, especially for prototypes, isn't sufficiently complicated or critical (i.e. life or death or responsible for millions) to warrant tests, and the threshold for types is higher. Also depends a lot on the size of your team and skill of developers. If you're producing code with few bugs to begin with, tests have less value. It's really all a matter of judgment and right-tool-for-the-job. Generalisms just aren't useful.