Ah that makes sense to me, I see where I misunderstood you. When you say you don’t understand what you mean is that you do understand but you disagree with the

Ah that makes sense to me, I see where I misunderstood you. When you say you don’t understand what you mean is that you do understand but you disagree with the point. I’m on mobile so it’s hard to reference what I previously said but I’m assuming my statement needs to be weakened a bit to be correct. What I meant to say was that unit tests provide essentially no value because they can’t offer perfect guarantees, which is probably different than what I originally said. I’m assuming I just said “they offer no value” which is probably false in some cases for some people and some teams depending on their definition of value. My point was that unit tests do not make sense insofar as their purpose is to provide guarantees about the behavior of code because the information they provide does not meet the standard definition of “a guarantee”. For the above mentioned people/teams/situations/value definitions, they may make sense. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. Regarding languages, algebraic structures can be implemented in any Turing complete language. Likewise with property-based testing (with, eg randomized inputs across the domain). I’d be willing to guess it’s just a matter of education and/or desire keeping most developers from using it.