dynamic classes and duck typing

retard re at tard.com.invalid
Tue Dec 1 23:13:49 PST 2009


Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:24:01 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> dsimcha wrote:
>> My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you at
>> all with high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level coding
>> errors.  Good unit tests (and good asserts), on the other hand, are
>> invaluable for finding and debugging high-level logic and algorithmic
>> errors.
> 
> Unit tests have their limitations as well. Unit tests cannot prove a
> function is pure, for example.

Sure, unit tests can't prove that.

> Both unit tests and static verification are needed.

But it doesn't lead to this conclusion. Static verification is sometimes 
very expensive and real world business applications don't need those 
guarantees that often. It's ok if a web site or game crashes every now 
and then. If I need serious static verification, I would use tools like 
Coq, not D..



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list