Comments on: Unit testing is not a substitute for static typing. http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/141 Just another Blogsavy.com weblog Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:35:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: A small example of the hidden dangers of dynamically typed programming languages. http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/141#comment-303 A small example of the hidden dangers of dynamically typed programming languages. Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:32:25 +0000 http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/154#comment-303 [...] days back I wrote about how unit testing is not a substitute for static typing. A comment posted to that article by James asked for more clarification regarding what I was [...] […] days back I wrote about how unit testing is not a substitute for static typing. A comment posted to that article by James asked for more clarification regarding what I was […]

]]> By: Anonymous http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/141#comment-302 Anonymous Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:58:43 +0000 http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/154#comment-302 All the static typing in the world won't save you if you have a logic error. The vast, vast majority of bugs I've hit, in both static and dynamic languages, are logic errors. Therefore, even statically typed languages require heavy unit testing to reduce bugs. If you're going to have unit testing anyway, why perform checks at both compile- and run-time? All the static typing in the world won’t save you if you have a logic error.
The vast, vast majority of bugs I’ve hit, in both static and dynamic languages, are logic errors.
Therefore, even statically typed languages require heavy unit testing to reduce bugs.

If you’re going to have unit testing anyway, why perform checks at both compile- and run-time?

]]> By: James http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/141#comment-301 James Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:14:12 +0000 http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/154#comment-301 Can you define just what is meant by "type-related error"? I can't recall the last time I had Ruby code break because I tried to act on an object of the "wrong" type. I have unit tests, but nothing that specifically attempts to verify object types. I write tests that verify behavior. The typing seems to take care of itself. What am I missing? Can you define just what is meant by “type-related error”?

I can’t recall the last time I had Ruby code break because I tried to act on an object of the “wrong” type. I have unit tests, but nothing that specifically attempts to verify object types.

I write tests that verify behavior. The typing seems to take care of itself. What am I missing?

]]>