* Janek S. <fremenz...@poczta.onet.pl> [2012-10-05 11:50:53+0200] > > Cool, looking forward to reading it! > Well, the post is already finished: > http://ics.p.lodz.pl/~stolarek/blog/2012/10/code-testing-in-haskell/ > I was just going to publish it and then your email came up on the list. > > > I hope you won't forget to cover SmallCheck in your article as well. > > Being also the maintainer of SmallCheck, I want it to steal some fame > > from QuickCheck :) > Sorry to disappoint you, but I did not mention SmallCheck. So far I'm relying > on QuickCheck and > didn't feel like I need to look for other testing library. I might be wrong > of course.
There are some technical advantages to SmallCheck (determinism, no need to shrink etc.), but the main reason I prefer it is because it gives me more confidence. With quickcheck, I know that it generated 100 tests, but I've no idea what those tests are, and whether the RNG missed some important corner cases. With SmallCheck I know that it tried *all* cases up to certain depth, so it's much more reassuring. (Except for cases when the notion of depth isn't that informative, like floating-point numbers.) Roman _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
