Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	I think you took me too seriously. I meant that it does precisely what
> it claims to. It's not meant for all kinds of tests. Just one kind.

I understand. I consider it a "problem" when a test tests something that 
doesn't really tell you things are working.  Especially the way it's hyped 
as making your code easy to refactor and blah blah blah.

> 	I suppose limited is more appropriate, but it still sounds too
> negative.<G> It's like saying mutt is limited because it doesn't send
> mails and needs the sendmail command. It just was never meant for
> sending mail.

Given that you have to put a fair amount of work into unit tests, and that 
what unit tests ensure isn't especially interesting in most cases, I'd say 
yes, "limited" ought to sound negative.

Automated testing is great.  Automated testing of a single class when that 
class does something profound all by itself is useful. Most of *my* classes 
are designed for interacting with other classes, tho, rather than for 
maintaining particular invariants.  Places where the classes are designed to 
maintain invariants are places where I'm usually using a library anyway.

-- 
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