|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 06/03/10 11:47, Darren New wrote:
>>>> On top of that, any kind of testing is going to be easier if a
>>>> function's output depends only on its current inputs...
>>> Yep. The problem with "unit testing" per se is that it only tests a
>>> unit. It doesn't test anything except the invariants of the unit you're
>>> testing.
>>
>> I wouldn't call it a "problem".
>
> Well, a limitation. I do very little programming where the invariants
> of the class are particularly difficult to ensure. That would be
> "datastructures" and "file systems", which I use system/language
> libraries for.
Or, to rephrase, sure, a SQL server can have gazillions of unit tests that
make sense. But I don't write SQL servers. That's been done. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |