Ben Finney a écrit :
greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also, I don't think it's valid to equate the size of the tests with
the amount of effort it took to develop them. For instance, the test
suite for Pyrex is currently larger than the Pyrex compiler, but
I've still spent far more time and effo
greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I don't think it's valid to equate the size of the tests with
> the amount of effort it took to develop them. For instance, the test
> suite for Pyrex is currently larger than the Pyrex compiler, but
> I've still spent far more time and effort developing th
Someone wrote:
I'm just curious whether this
argument against dynamic typing - that you end up doing the job of a
static compiler in test code - holds in practice.
I suspect that, although some of the things caught
by the tests would be caught by static typing, the
very *same* tests are also ca
On Apr 30, 10:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A rather off-topic and perhaps naive question, but isn't a 1:4
> > production/test ratio a bit too much ? Is there a guesstimate of what
> > percentage of this test code tests for things that you would get for
> > free in a statically typed language
>
> A rather off-topic and perhaps naive question, but isn't a 1:4
> production/test ratio a bit too much ? Is there a guesstimate of what
> percentage of this test code tests for things that you would get for
> free in a statically typed language ? I'm just curious whether this
> argument against
On Apr 29, 2:25 pm, Fuzzyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are around 30 000 lines of Python in the production code and
> about 120 000 lines of Python code in the test framework.
A rather off-topic and perhaps naive question, but isn't a 1:4
production/test ratio a bit too much ? Is there a