this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
-13 points (43.8% liked)
Programming
17319 readers
89 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tests are supposed to ensure functionality, not implementation. No useful unit test has ever been made obsolete by a type system. Likewise, if your tests claim your program fulfills its functionality, the type system ads no additional information to the discussion.
My point was that without a type system you need an impossible 100% code coverage, to be sure that you didn't accidentally mess up some variable assignment or parameter somewhere, since you have nothings to easily and automatically catch those errors.
I understand your point, I just choose to reject it for the reasons given.
I think we are actually saying the same thing though..? Tests should really only ensure functionality. It should be the language's job to help you with obvious implementation errors (such as using a wrong value type).