> A while ago, I did some brute force tests on a simple stack-based > language to get some testable metrics on how many unit tests you need > to guarantee correctness. With a language of 7 instructions and a > maximum program size of 8 instructions, there are about 6.7 million > program permutations. Testing a single random assertion resulted in > the elimination of 99.997% of all incorrect programs. Adding a second > assertion resulted in 100% of all incorrect programs being discarded. >
Even though you only set out to talk about unit testing as a substitute for static typing, you seem to provide anecdotal evidence of the broader point that I was making. Namely, it's quite interesting to me that you can actually run a syntactically incorrect program in a dynamic language ... at least in python. Perhaps in NetBeans clojure you can't, I dunno. But either way, assuming it is easier than some claim to get good coverage with few unit tests, such tests will not only catch type mismatches but other, more basic errors, too. In fact, could someone please explain why the topic is limited mostly to "type systems" or whatever? What is the significance of that one type of incorrect program? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
