4 ms·
So glad somebody finally said this. I've noticed this dynamic for years and it really is sad to watch. I remember reading over the community reviewing a large p
by ctoth 5y ago
So glad somebody finally said this. I've noticed this dynamic for years and it really is sad to watch. I remember reading over the community reviewing a large patchset someone had contributed a couple months ago and the amount of negativity was remarkable.
- hadcomplained 5y agoWould you mind telling me exactly which patchset you are referring to?
- wswope 5y agoNot OP but probably this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28896367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28896367.
- staticassertion 5y agoI had one conversation with Guido at Dropbox where I wanted to get a dependency updated so that I could write quickcheck tests. It was like pulling teeth - he didn't know what property testing was ("some haskell thing?" - his words) and so he wouldn't update it ("are you implying that how Dropbox writes tests today isn't good enough?" - his words), so I couldn't write generated tests. Sort of ironically, property testing was used elsewhere in the company to great success, and in fact we were all told the scary story of the 1 hour where empty passwords let anyone log into any account - a bug that a proeprty test is very well designed for. I walked away pretty embarrassed for him and decided I wasn't interested in further interaction.
- jslaby 5y agoIsn't it really a "haskell thing", though? Generated testing of properties seems a bit overkill, but I might be mistaken about how that actually works.
- staticassertion 5y agoquickcheck was initially a haskell project, but it's a little absurd to reduce proeprty testing down like that. I also wouldn't call it overkill. It's trivial to do generated tests.