Python vs. C#
peter at engcorp.com
Thu Aug 14 04:17:24 CEST 2003
Christopher Barber wrote:
> Andrew Bennetts <andrew-pythonlist at puzzling.org> writes:
> > In both cases, you need tests, preferably comprehensive, automated tests, to
> > verify that your code actually works correctly.
> I like the sentiment, but in practice there is no such thing as comprehensive
Without an agreed-upon definition of "comprehensive", this is arguable.
"1. Including much; comprising many things; having a wide
scope or a full view."
Surely you'd agree that comprehensive tests are possible in this case.
"2: including all or everything"
In this case, although I'm unclear on the distinction between "all" and
"everything", you're certainly correct, but it's an uninteresting point
as it's too obvious. Certainly Andrew doesn't think anyone has tests
which cover *everything*...
And is your objection based on personal experience only, or do you
consider others' situations. I would say that at my workplace we
certainly have *comprehensive* and fully automated tests for some of
our code. And those tests do verify quite well that the code works.
More information about the Python-list