On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 05:47:29PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> >> "Only the simplest of designs benefits from pre-coded tests, unless you
> >> have
> >> unlimited developer time."
> > needless to say I just don't believe this.
>
> Try writing a test suite ahead of ti
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 05:44:45PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> This isn't an answer to your question, but in general production is the
> environment in which your code will be exposed to the data and
> conditions which have had the least testing, and to which you will have
> the least access an
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:00:57PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > I'm going through some work to restore Test::More and Test::Harness to work
> > on 5.4.5, minor stuff really, and I'm wondering if its worth the trouble.
> >
> > Has anyone seen 5.004_xx in the wild? And
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:35:53AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Tripped across this on WardsWiki just now. #5 is my favorite as its often
> forgotten in the noise.
>
> http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobOnCodingStandards
>
> On coding standards:
>
>1. Let them evolve during the first f
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:50:01PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:48:49PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Someone said:
> >
> > >First, there are basic native types such
> > >as num, int, and string, which I'm perfectly fine with. But what bothers
> > >me is the fact that big
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:18:45AM +, David Chan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:35:13PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:17:55AM +, Alex Gough wrote:
> > > Yes, at some point allowing 10**2, is just silly,
> > > and I doubt the potentiona
