3 ms·
One of my favorite things about tests is that they let me read a new codebase more interactively. If I don't understand why a function is built like this and no
by akkartik 13y ago
One of my favorite things about tests is that they let me read a new codebase more interactively. If I don't understand why a function is built like this and not that I can rewrite it the new way, run the tests. Without names I'd know I broke something, but with a good name I'll often realize why that something matters in the big picture.
(I think about tests a lot: http://akkartik.name/post/tracing-tests http://akkartik.name/post/tracing-tests)
- skrishnamurthi 13y agoI understand your point. One thing I pushed for initially, dropped because we had bigger fish to fry, and will revisit later, is the idea that you should be able to name everything: not just tests but an individual variant in your data definition, lines of code, etc. And this should be intrinsic to the language. That said, I couldn't see what your post had to do with this concept; if I've missed something, please explain. (As an aside, I believe this -- http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/mcskr-dataflow-lang-script-debug-journal/ http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/mcskr-... -- generalizes the idea in your tracing post.)
- akkartik 13y agoThanks. My post wasn't about names, I was just looking for feedback. Which I got; thanks.