5 ms·

But there are typical practices we agree are good: using a VCS, writing tests, write comments when needed, separate different level of abstractions, etc. Right?

But there are typical practices we agree are good: using a VCS, writing tests, write comments when needed, separate different level of abstractions, etc. Right? This comes from years of common experience in software. Over time we get to find patterns, common issues and ways to fix them, etc. It doesn't have to be strict patterns but overall strategies. If we don't do that then it's just vibes right? Where's the engineering part?

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Nothing is fixed in stone. If you have strong typing and program with pure functions and immutability while utilizing union types and matching to the full extent you typically need very few unit tests for your code to work. You just need integration and e2e tests. I write very little unit tests as my coding style that employs static checks as viciously as possible doesn’t necessitate it. I would say only 30 percent of patterns are good and shared. The other stuff is just artistry and opinion. Like method name length or comments or OOP.
- NeutralForest 2y ago
  I don't really agree, unit test should test behavior, having types of not should not be a defining factor in the coverage. I don't think patterns as a whole are good but there are known issues and structures to existing problems so boiling it down to art seems reductionist imo.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    You don’t agree because you likely aren’t utilizing static checks to the extent that I do. Like there are no strings or numbers in my code. Everything is operating on strict union type boundaries. The only place where you have unbounded types like strings is on the interface to IO or state. I can code and not test behavior and have that behavior work reliably without tests. Key word is the unit trst. Typically IO and things that live outside these boundaries need integration tests. Most of web programming today actually doesn’t need much unit testing. You’re not doing much processing. The web layer functions as a router and that layer is a meta layer that writes code that executes somewhere else. Over half the code executes as sql. Integration tests are by far more important. Boiling it down to an art is not reductionist. It’s true. Where is the scientific method in programming? How was a pattern deduced using the scientific method? If it was not deduced using the method then was it created from axioms and logic like math? Is it a theorem? No. It’s all just made up. And we have no quantitative way of verifying why one design is better than another design. That’s why software technology often moves horizontally. There’s no way to verify the current design was better than the last. Even both you and I have a disagreement and are at a stalemate. Can you prove your unit testing is superior to my static testing? Not really. Actually tbf static checking is provably better if you don’t count the dimension of effort required to use dependent types.
    - NeutralForest 2y ago
      That's an interesting approach, I'd like to see an implementation of what you're talking about. What language are you using that has such an expressive type system? Oh, I agree that there usually isn't a scientific method to programming. I think there could be though. Not for everything of course, some things will always be up to personal taste and interpretation but the cursor could probably be moved with some effort in analyzing existing codebases at scale, doing surveys, internal testing of different approaches in large companies. Something more akin to what you see in social sciences, even if it might be a bad word in some circles! We probably won't agree but I legitimately enjoy hearing about how people code.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        Typescript is capable of dependent typing, union types, exhaustive matching and everything needed to achieve this style of programming. It's just not strict. The other language is rust. Though it's type system is not as expressive as typescript it is strict meaning nobody can really cheat their way out of it. In general Rust code requires less unit tests then typescript because of this. The other language is Idris and Haskell. But these languages are rarely used. This article can shed some insight into what I'm talking about: https://wiki.haskell.org/Why_Haskell_just_works#:~:text=The%20fact%20that%20functional%20programming,ever%20caught%20in%20imperative%20languages. https://wiki.haskell.org/Why_Haskell_just_works#:~:text=The%...
        NeutralForest 2y ago
        Thanks, I haven't touched Typescript in a while so it might be the occasion for that. When do you feel like you have a handle on the behavior, do you have complex integration tests then?
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      I write a big web application with a fairly type-oriented language, and I still write lots of unit tests. Mostly to do with parsing.
- NeutralForest 2y ago
  I don't really agree, unit test should test behavior, having types or not should not be a defining factor in the coverage. I don't think patterns as a whole are good but there are known issues and structures to existing problems so boiling it down to art seems reductionist imo.
- globnomulous 2y ago
  Could you give an example where you've used a "static check" where someone else might be likelier to use a unit test? I'm curious.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

Nothing is fixed in stone. If you have strong typing and program with pure functions and immutability while utilizing union types and matching to the full extent you typically need very few unit tests for your code to work. You just need integration and e2e tests. I write very little unit tests as my coding style that employs static checks as viciously as possible doesn’t necessitate it. I would say only 30 percent of patterns are good and shared. The other stuff is just artistry and opinion. Like method name length or comments or OOP.

NeutralForest 2y ago
I don't really agree, unit test should test behavior, having types of not should not be a defining factor in the coverage. I don't think patterns as a whole are good but there are known issues and structures to existing problems so boiling it down to art seems reductionist imo.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  You don’t agree because you likely aren’t utilizing static checks to the extent that I do. Like there are no strings or numbers in my code. Everything is operating on strict union type boundaries. The only place where you have unbounded types like strings is on the interface to IO or state. I can code and not test behavior and have that behavior work reliably without tests. Key word is the unit trst. Typically IO and things that live outside these boundaries need integration tests. Most of web programming today actually doesn’t need much unit testing. You’re not doing much processing. The web layer functions as a router and that layer is a meta layer that writes code that executes somewhere else. Over half the code executes as sql. Integration tests are by far more important. Boiling it down to an art is not reductionist. It’s true. Where is the scientific method in programming? How was a pattern deduced using the scientific method? If it was not deduced using the method then was it created from axioms and logic like math? Is it a theorem? No. It’s all just made up. And we have no quantitative way of verifying why one design is better than another design. That’s why software technology often moves horizontally. There’s no way to verify the current design was better than the last. Even both you and I have a disagreement and are at a stalemate. Can you prove your unit testing is superior to my static testing? Not really. Actually tbf static checking is provably better if you don’t count the dimension of effort required to use dependent types.
  - NeutralForest 2y ago
    That's an interesting approach, I'd like to see an implementation of what you're talking about. What language are you using that has such an expressive type system? Oh, I agree that there usually isn't a scientific method to programming. I think there could be though. Not for everything of course, some things will always be up to personal taste and interpretation but the cursor could probably be moved with some effort in analyzing existing codebases at scale, doing surveys, internal testing of different approaches in large companies. Something more akin to what you see in social sciences, even if it might be a bad word in some circles! We probably won't agree but I legitimately enjoy hearing about how people code.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Typescript is capable of dependent typing, union types, exhaustive matching and everything needed to achieve this style of programming. It's just not strict. The other language is rust. Though it's type system is not as expressive as typescript it is strict meaning nobody can really cheat their way out of it. In general Rust code requires less unit tests then typescript because of this. The other language is Idris and Haskell. But these languages are rarely used. This article can shed some insight into what I'm talking about: https://wiki.haskell.org/Why_Haskell_just_works#:~:text=The%20fact%20that%20functional%20programming,ever%20caught%20in%20imperative%20languages. https://wiki.haskell.org/Why_Haskell_just_works#:~:text=The%...
      - NeutralForest 2y ago
        Thanks, I haven't touched Typescript in a while so it might be the occasion for that. When do you feel like you have a handle on the behavior, do you have complex integration tests then?
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    I write a big web application with a fairly type-oriented language, and I still write lots of unit tests. Mostly to do with parsing.
NeutralForest 2y ago
I don't really agree, unit test should test behavior, having types or not should not be a defining factor in the coverage. I don't think patterns as a whole are good but there are known issues and structures to existing problems so boiling it down to art seems reductionist imo.
globnomulous 2y ago
Could you give an example where you've used a "static check" where someone else might be likelier to use a unit test? I'm curious.