2 ms·
It sounds like you might be better with something like QuickCheck for your testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickCheck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickCh
by alexatkeplar 15y ago
It sounds like you might be better with something like QuickCheck for your testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickCheck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickCheck
This was featured recently in Bryan O'Sullivan's "Running a startup on Haskell" presentation: "[QuickCheck] generates random data, then tells me if all properties that I expect to be true of my functions and data hold. QuickCheck is shockingly more effective at finding bugs than unit tests."
There are ports of QuickCheck to tons of other languages...
- blackhole 15y agoThis gets complicated in a graphics engine where the only place you can tell something has gone wrong is after the image shows up in the wrong place. It would help a lot for the majority of cases, though.