Most code w/o tests has hard dependencies (i.e. new everywhere) or static methods, so it's almost impossible to throw a unit test in place.
-
-
Replying to @shit_so_says
@shit_so_says This isn't necessarily bullshit... Writing tests often has the tendency to force you to solve these problems.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua 'new' and static methods have nothing to do with being able to test code. Read https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Testing …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shit_so_says
@shit_so_says Oh, the comment was about Haskell? I couldn't comment. Some mainstream languages are more testable with dependency injection.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua No. The concept of "side effect" is equally applicable to all programming languages. Haskell is just explicit about it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shit_so_says
@shit_so_says The engineer that wrote that specialises in .NET. He's not trying to write a general comment on all unit testing.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua The question was about unit testing in general, not specific to any platform or language.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shit_so_says
@shit_so_says You are correct. But implicitly I always try to read the context of who somebody is into their answer. It clarifies.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua I recommend learning Haskell, it teaches you many concepts that you can apply in most other languages. http://learnyouahaskell.com/1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@shit_so_says I have already read that. Thanks though. :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.