3 ms·
Test the hell out of anything you use, both hardware, software, and infrastructure -- and write the tests before you write any code. Double-down on that for stu
by DanielBMarkham 12y ago
Test the hell out of anything you use, both hardware, software, and infrastructure -- and write the tests before you write any code. Double-down on that for stuff like medical tech.
Now, is anybody doing that? Anybody? (Sound of crickets chirping)
- pjmlp 12y agoThat would be the case if people hadn't learn to disregard computer errors, when compared to other industries.
- DanielBMarkham 12y agoMoving to FP over the previous few years, it continues to amaze me the number of code paths that most programmers completely blow off.
- glibgil 12y agoThe article is about static analysis. Static analysis is the most efficient way to catch a whole host of bugs. Testing would be a waste of everyone's time for these types of bugs. Now, the tools in the article are commercial and perform static analysis on C and C++. Other programming languages have static analysis and code path coverage analysis built into their compilers. Many of those languages are free. Writing tests to cover those types of bugs is time wasted on a problem that is already solved.
- DanielBMarkham 12y agoI completely agree. I won't change my initial comment, but please be aware that by "testing" I also meant static code analysis. (Thought had it covered with software, hardware, and infrastructure, but forgot one)
- pjmlp 12y agoFunny enough in a sad way, static analysis tooling was part of the original C tooling, but when developers started creating C compilers for systems other than UNIX, lint seldom came along. It also did not help the way C compiler phases were split. If anything, we have to thank LLVM guys for making static analysis part of clang.