On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
(now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting language... but it's
not strong.. and I don't like that! It just produces buggy code,
IMO)
In other words, you don't write unit tests.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unit tests are not substitutes for good compiler-time checking. Why
do I have to write a unit test for something that computers can
check by default?
Compile and ship it! :)
Ah ha! Now we're to the fun stuff.... successful compilation is a
false sense of "correctness". So what if you got your syntax correct
- your program still could have logical flaws.
Does your compiler check that you've got your OGNL expressions
correct? Or if you have a typo even syntactically (not even
logically) will you still get a run-time error? <span
jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl:customer.nmae"/> - client's make the best
testers, that's for sure :)
With all the reflection going on in Tapestry and other frameworks,
it's an illusion that successful compilation means much of anything.
Java is much more "dynamic" than you seem to think.
Arguing that dynamic languages produces buggy code is not going to go
very far for you. Don't fall into this trap - it is close-minded and
limiting.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
