dynamic classes and duck typing

Walter Bright newshound1 at digitalmars.com
Wed Dec 2 11:39:33 PST 2009


retard wrote:
> I agree some disciplines are hard to follow. For example ensuring 
> immutability in a inherently mutable language. But TDD is something a bit 
> easier - it's a lot higher level. It's easy to remember that you can't 
> write any code into production code folder unless there is already code 
> in test folder. You can verify with code coverage tools that you didn't 
> forget to write some tests. In TDD the whole code looks different. You 
> build it to be easily testable. It's provably a good way to write code - 
> almost every company nowadays uses TDD and agile methods such as Scrum.

I totally agree with the value of unittests. That's why D has them built 
in to the language, and even has a code coverage analyzer built in so 
you can see how good your unit tests are.

Where you and I disagree is on the notion that unit tests are a good 
enough replacement for static verification. For me it's like using a 
sports car to tow a trailer.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list