Rant after trying Rust a bit

[Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 22:07:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 21:48:23 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 July 2015 at 21:32:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Because that is 99% of D users...
>
> If so, they have no excuse. D has made it ridiculously easy to 
> unit test your code. And I very much doubt that 99% of D users 
> don't unit test their code.
>
> There are cases where 100% isn't possible - e.g. because of an 
> assert(0) or because you're dealing with UI code or the like 
> where it simply isn't usable without running the program - but 
> even then, the test coverage should be as close to 100% as can 
> be achieved, which isn't usually going to be all that far from 
> 100%.
>
> We should be ashamed when our code is not as close to 100% code 
> coverage as is feasible (which is usually 100%).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I ment 99% don't 100% unit tests, but even close to 100% is still 
probably not that common, most D users are hobbyists I 
think(though I could be wrong), and hobbyists are lazy.