Rant after trying Rust a bit

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/24/15 6:09 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d 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?

False choice. -- Andrei