Spoon progress 15 April 2005: inert method deletion details and next steps

Alan Lovejoy squeak-dev.sourcery at forum-mail.net
Mon Apr 17 00:40:55 UTC 2006


Andreas:

Actually, I didn't intend to imply that you were endorsing the statement
without qualification.  Sorry about that. I've been on the warpath against
mindless dogma, lately.

And I agree that there's a kernel of truth to the statement, and the
argument behind it.  Of course, the same can be said about the case for
static typing. It's often the case the "sound byte" statements, pro or con,
oversimplify the situation.

--Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andreas
Raab
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:36 PM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: Spoon progress 15 April 2005: inert method deletion details and
next steps

Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> Andreas: "Of course, the promoters of TDD would claim that if there
> isn't a test covering it, the code might as well not exist ;-)"
>
> Ya know, that sentiment reminds me way too much of the arguments made
> by the static typing priesthood. At the very least, it's a dogmatic
> overstatement of the case.

Which -I thought- the smiley at the end made clear. Sorry to see it doesn't.
Yes, of course, that was a dogmatic overstatement, it was meant to be. But
there is a grain of truth that's worthwhile to discuss - namely that, if
anything, tests should be used as "a" primary source for imprinting (I'm
putting the "a source" in quotes to point out that I don't mean it to be the
sole source just in case someone else is inclined to interpret this as
another dogmatic overstatement which in that case it's not supposed to be
;-) <-- and please notice smiley here; this wasn't supposed to be taken too
seriously ;-) <-- etc.

Cheers,
   - Andreas





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list