Comment by NeutralForest
9 months ago
But there are typical practices we agree are good: using a VCS, writing tests, write comments when needed, separate different level of abstractions, etc. Right? This comes from years of common experience in software.
Over time we get to find patterns, common issues and ways to fix them, etc. It doesn't have to be strict patterns but overall strategies.
If we don't do that then it's just vibes right? Where's the engineering part?
Nothing is fixed in stone. If you have strong typing and program with pure functions and immutability while utilizing union types and matching to the full extent you typically need very few unit tests for your code to work. You just need integration and e2e tests.
I write very little unit tests as my coding style that employs static checks as viciously as possible doesn’t necessitate it.
I would say only 30 percent of patterns are good and shared. The other stuff is just artistry and opinion. Like method name length or comments or OOP.
I don't really agree, unit test should test behavior, having types or not should not be a defining factor in the coverage.
I don't think patterns as a whole are good but there are known issues and structures to existing problems so boiling it down to art seems reductionist imo.
Could you give an example where you've used a "static check" where someone else might be likelier to use a unit test? I'm curious.
I don't really agree, unit test should test behavior, having types of not should not be a defining factor in the coverage.
I don't think patterns as a whole are good but there are known issues and structures to existing problems so boiling it down to art seems reductionist imo.
You don’t agree because you likely aren’t utilizing static checks to the extent that I do. Like there are no strings or numbers in my code. Everything is operating on strict union type boundaries. The only place where you have unbounded types like strings is on the interface to IO or state.
I can code and not test behavior and have that behavior work reliably without tests. Key word is the unit trst. Typically IO and things that live outside these boundaries need integration tests.
Most of web programming today actually doesn’t need much unit testing. You’re not doing much processing. The web layer functions as a router and that layer is a meta layer that writes code that executes somewhere else.
Over half the code executes as sql. Integration tests are by far more important.
Boiling it down to an art is not reductionist. It’s true. Where is the scientific method in programming? How was a pattern deduced using the scientific method? If it was not deduced using the method then was it created from axioms and logic like math? Is it a theorem?
No. It’s all just made up. And we have no quantitative way of verifying why one design is better than another design. That’s why software technology often moves horizontally. There’s no way to verify the current design was better than the last.
Even both you and I have a disagreement and are at a stalemate. Can you prove your unit testing is superior to my static testing? Not really. Actually tbf static checking is provably better if you don’t count the dimension of effort required to use dependent types.
9 replies →