 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Stefan Sandberg wrote:
I beg to differ, that's about as productive as preemptive optimizations.I really don't have time to assume when, where and how things fuck up, they always do, and when it happens I wanna get to it as efficiently as possible.. Just works out faster.. (not saying assertions and unit testing are bad, but to rely on it is an assumption I'm not willing to make)
I have to agree. If anything the attitude exemplified by the comments Thomas makes indicate someone that hasn't been around long enough to know that unit testing does not equal quality. Too many people treat unit testing as a panacea rather than just part of the solution.
This tendency seems to be realing strong in the dynamic language crowd - often people that never think about word size or have even worked in assembly. I think the Ruby/Python community suffer from this more than Lua.
Stephen(My comments are not aimed a Thomas, just the general sentiment of the comments).
Thomas Breuel wrote:To my mind, adding these capabilities for Lua would be a great step forward, since debugging programs is not an easy task, and debugging programs, written in dynamically typed languages, is even harder.Instead of a complicated debugger, if you use plenty of unit tests and assertions in your code, you won't need a debugger, you'll be more productive overall, and your code will be of higher quality.