A healthy mix of course! There even has been some research on the second point. It turned out that unit tests and code review (=~ thinking) catch largely disjoint sets of bugs.
Other than that, you need to randomize X over Y vs Y over X in order to get sound results. On Jan 27, 3:25 pm, a...@puredanger.com wrote: > If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it out > online:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFpleU1QbVRyLWVX... > > Clojure Community Values > > For no particular reason I got to thinking about things the Clojure > community values in the style of the Agile manifesto, that is "we value ___ > over ___" with the caveat that we may find both valuable, but one more than > the other. This survey is not serious, or important, or binding. Maybe the > results will be useless but perhaps they will be interesting. Blatant > commercial: if you want to discuss, why not check out Clojure/West in San > Jose, Mar 16-17 (http://clojurewest.org), early bird registration ends hmmm > today! > > In the Clojure community, we value... * > > Emphatic yes Yes No Actually, the opposite > > Code over ideas > > Thinking over tests > > Data over interfaces > > Values over variables > > Public over private > > Accessibility over encapsulation > > Simple over easy > > Eggs over easy > > Man, you totally screwed up. These are better: Add one per line. If they're > good I'll add them to the list above. > > Powered by Google Docs Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
