4 ms·

Wait until you work on a 100k line code base where someone enforced this kind of thing

DarylZero 5y ago
point-free master race
robertlagrant 5y ago
Fair enough - I haven't done that. I'd be surprised if having loads of anonymous, untested functions would make such a thing more manageable, though.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Do you test every line of code you write separately? Probably not. You test a function that has 5 lines of code. Same for anonymous functions. You test the functions that use them and that's usually enough. If not, then that is a good indicator of separating them out into named functions.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    This is the wrong way to think about it, though. A function encapsulates some behaviour, regardless of how short or long it is. You don't test each line (directly); you test each function's mode of operation. So a function with one if statement in it potentially needs two (happy path) tests.
    - valenterry 5y ago
      I don't think we disagree. It's just that a lambda doesn't change this. If the lambda itself also contains a branch, then yeah, you should probably test the outer function with at least 2 inputs.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        I agree, except I think that a lamdba is an arbitrary line to draw for that as well. Why not stop at the main function and give it a load of inputs? A five line lamdba looks a lot like a named function, just harder to test, reuse, and debug in a stack trace.
        valenterry 5y ago
        I was basing my comment on this: > 20 short functions definitely sound as though they should be explicit. And you are right that it's pretty arbitrary when/if a lambda should specifically be tested or not. But the number of lambdas in a project isn't really a good factor to make that decision - it's individual for each function that contains a lambda.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        Well, I more meant that if they're "short" as opposed to "20 character one-liners" then it sounds as though they should be tested, whether or not they're defined using lambda syntax.

point-free master race

Fair enough - I haven't done that. I'd be surprised if having loads of anonymous, untested functions would make such a thing more manageable, though.

valenterry 5y ago
Do you test every line of code you write separately? Probably not. You test a function that has 5 lines of code. Same for anonymous functions. You test the functions that use them and that's usually enough. If not, then that is a good indicator of separating them out into named functions.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  This is the wrong way to think about it, though. A function encapsulates some behaviour, regardless of how short or long it is. You don't test each line (directly); you test each function's mode of operation. So a function with one if statement in it potentially needs two (happy path) tests.
  - valenterry 5y ago
    I don't think we disagree. It's just that a lambda doesn't change this. If the lambda itself also contains a branch, then yeah, you should probably test the outer function with at least 2 inputs.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      I agree, except I think that a lamdba is an arbitrary line to draw for that as well. Why not stop at the main function and give it a load of inputs? A five line lamdba looks a lot like a named function, just harder to test, reuse, and debug in a stack trace.
      - valenterry 5y ago
        I was basing my comment on this: > 20 short functions definitely sound as though they should be explicit. And you are right that it's pretty arbitrary when/if a lambda should specifically be tested or not. But the number of lambdas in a project isn't really a good factor to make that decision - it's individual for each function that contains a lambda.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        Well, I more meant that if they're "short" as opposed to "20 character one-liners" then it sounds as though they should be tested, whether or not they're defined using lambda syntax.