| |||||||||||||
GNOME Platform StormcloudsGNOME Platform StormcloudsPosted Mar 29, 2004 21:18 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: GNOME Platform Stormclouds by mly Parent article: GNOME Platform Stormclouds If unit tests only test classes in isolation, then there's no way that they could be a good substitute for static type checking (as you claimed earlier). What about inter-unit errors? FYI, the examples you posted are contrived. They either involve a significant amount of refactoring and redesign (eShop) or a heavy reliance on standard libraries (Twisted). Python is definitely less verbose than C++, but 90% is laughable. Remember that we're comparing langauge features here, not programming environments.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME Platform Stormclouds Posted Mar 29, 2004 23:31 UTC (Mon) by mly (guest, #2171) [Link] If unit tests only test classes in isolation, then there's no way that they could be a good substitute for static type checking (as you claimed earlier). What about inter-unit errors?I'm sorry if I was unclear. The purpose of the unit test is only to test the unit under test. That doesn't mean that you typically replace the calls to external units with stubs. You only use stubs when there is a good reason for it, e.g. when networking or database access is too slow, and then you can probably still have some simple test included that uses the interface. In SystemSpecifyer for instance, I use ZODB's (non-persistent) dummy storage when I test my business logic. I access ZODB through the same module (kbase) to store things, but it's never saved to disk in these tests. On the other hand, the unit tests for the kbase module use filestorage, like my real application. Another extreme programming practice that helps solve this problem is continous integration, but this is turning into a full XP tutorial... :) Python is definitely less verbose than C++, Great! We agree on something! :) but 90% is laughable. I never claimed than a ten-fold productivity gain was typical. I quoted a number of sources claiming from 2-3 and up to 10 times improvement. Your gain will depend on your use case. I think that several times more code in e.g. C than in Python is typical though, and that's what I wrote. That's my personal experience after seven years with Python and fifteen with C/C++. Remember that we're comparing langauge features here, not programming environments. I've just tried to explain why programming in Python will typically lead to fewer bugs, not more bugs, than e.g. C, even though Python lacks static typing. (But I guess that's easier to experience from programming than to convince others about in a comment thread on LWN...) I'm not sure what you mean by "programming environment", but Python's standard library is certainly a part of Python, and a significant reason for Python's success.
GNOME Platform Stormclouds Posted Mar 30, 2004 20:24 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] mly, I really wish you would edit your replies to a more manageable size. I now have no idea what you're trying to say.This thread started when you were advocating using unit tests instead of static type checking. I have been saying that in most real-world situtations, unit tests are a poor substitute for static type checking, and I maintain that position. I don't understand why you're trying to sell Python so hard. It's a language, not a used car! And I'm not even in the market...
GNOME Platform Stormclouds Posted Mar 29, 2004 23:56 UTC (Mon) by mly (guest, #2171) [Link] I just stumbled over a blog by Bruce Eckel that mightexplain what I've tried to say better than I can. http://mindview.net/WebLog/log-0052
GNOME Platform Stormclouds Posted Apr 1, 2004 13:27 UTC (Thu) by joib (guest, #8541) [Link] That was a nice argument from Bruce. He has also argued similarly before, in a previous blog entry. He even spells it out in bold font: "If it's not tested, it's broken."
|
|||||||||||||