Rant after trying Rust a bit

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Jul 24 15:25:23 PDT 2015


On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 22:09:24 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
> On 07/24/15 23:32, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 20:57:34 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
>>> The difference is that right now the developer has to write a 
>>> unit-test per function that uses `hasPrefix`, otherwise the 
>>> code might not even be verified to compile. 100% unit-test 
>>> coverage is not going to happen in practice, and just like 
>>> with docs, making things easier and reducing boilerplate to a 
>>> minimum would improve the situation dramatically.
>> 
>> But you see. This is exactly wrong attitude. Why on earth 
>> should we make life easier for folks who don't bother to get 
>> 100% unit test coverage?
>
> How exactly does making it harder to write tests translate into 
> having better coverage? Why is requiring the programmer to 
> write unnecessary, redundant, and potentially buggy tests 
> preferable?

And how are we making it harder to write tests? We're merely 
saying that you have to actually instantiate your template and 
test those instantiations. If someone don't catch a bug in their 
template, because they didn't try the various combinations of 
stuff that it supports (and potentially verifying that it doesn't 
compile with stuff that it's not supposed to support), then they 
didn't test it enough. Having the compiler tell you that you're 
using a function that you didn't require in your template 
constraint might be nice, but if the programmer didn't catch that 
anyway, then they didn't test enough. And if you don't test 
enough, you're bound to have other bugs. So, the folks this helps 
are the folks that aren't testing their code sufficiently and 
thus likely have buggy code anyway.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list