4 ms·
Hi, I'm the author of the blog post and the paper. I certainly do not argue that static typing obviates unit testing. I agree that both are valuable together. I
by efarrer 3y ago
Hi, I'm the author of the blog post and the paper. I certainly do not argue that static typing obviates unit testing. I agree that both are valuable together. I did however find examples where individual unit tests could be deleted because they didn't test anything that wasn't covered by the static type system. In other words static typing didn't eliminate the need for unit tests (for catching bugs), but it did reduce the number of needed tests (in real world code).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ReflectedImage 3y agoSo I think you are running on a false premise here efarrer. The false premises is that anyone ships bug free code. It can be done but it's stupidly expensive. Formal methods Z proofs, etc. Unit testing and static typing are 2 different techniques which eliminate bugs. The question that needs to be answered is which of the 2 techniques is the most effective per developer hour spent. Unit tests do not caught all the bugs that static typing would catch nor does static typing catch all the bugs unit tests would catch. That's not an useful observation. Nor is there a moral here that you should be doing both, doing both is expensive and costs $$$.