4 ms·
"[A]dequate testing": Woah, I love this term. It is judgmental right from the start. It's right up there with "convention over configuration" and "well, if yo
by throwaway2037 3y ago
"[A]dequate testing": Woah, I love this term. It is judgmental right from the start. It's right up there with "convention over configuration" and "well, if you wear your face mask _correctly_..." I once saw a blog post from an embedded programmer talking about how difficult it is to write "adequate" unit tests for embedded code. If you are writing code that will run in a heart pace maker or aeroplane auto-pilot/lander, it needs to be insanely well tested.
- pfdietz 3y agoIt's not judgmental in some dubious way. "Adequate" here means adequate to ensure the software achieves a specified (and high) level of reliability. If testing is enough to ensure the software is reliable, does the extra benefit of static typing make it worth the cost? This could be quite a lot of testing! The more testing that is done, the fewer type bugs remain that static typing would have found. The argument you want to make against this is that static typing would have benefit beyond just finding bugs. The argument you don't want to make is that static typing reduces the need for testing.