Spoon progress 15 April 2006: inert method deletion details etc.

Chris Muller chris at funkyobjects.org
Mon Apr 17 21:07:29 UTC 2006


>    I must admit (not surprisingly :) that I'm a fan of using test cases to
> establish coverage, and improving the test cases over time. I also think
> this is markedly different than static typing advocacy; in fact, I think
> they're near polar opposites. The static typing people seem to want to
>use it in large part as a hedge against testing. I think testing is
>critical and unavoidable, and we may as well use the information we get
>from it to the fullest. But sure, there are still pitfalls to deal with.

 Well I've never met anyone even in the Java world who was really serious when they said, "hey, it compiles, let's go to production..!"
 
 What I took from Alans allusion was that tests are a static declaration of the desired behavior and how, in the "ultimate" dynamic system, this would just get in the way of "nowness" because you already have ultimate malleability anyway.  If you ever run into a problem, just fix it right then, don't declare it in the test and then fix it.
 
 I like to think of the old Enterprise computer of "Star Trek".  Jim Kirk didn't need no stinkin' tests anymore than he needed a class diagram because it was quicker to just tell the computer what he wanted.
 
    (Kirk) "Computer."
    "w e r k i n g ..."
    "Calculate how to break through the Tholian web."
 
 Of course, don't take any of this to think I don't approve of tests, I have to rely on them heavily in my projects; and we have a quite a ways to go before we reach that level of dynamism..
 
 Cheers..






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list