Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That doesn't mean you did it safely or efficiently. Most of the other people on here would be horrified that you didn't have any unit tests. In fact, if you had any sensitive user data in your database, you were doing something absolutely irresponsible.

A few months ago, I drove in NYC on a major, two-way road that had been repaved, but it didn't have white or yellow lines on it yet.

People were driving as fast as usual, and I didn't get into an accident. However, I (and the other drivers) were much less safe because we didn't have those lines.

What you're talking about is driving without the lines and without a seatbelt.

Based on your attitude, my guess is that your first 4 years of professional programming didn't end that long ago. That's fine, and you can believe you're super smart and doing everything right (like I did), but you're going to find out that unit tests are an industry standard for a reason.



Based on the fact that you've never met me, or seen a line of my code, I don't really give a toss.

You are the one who asserted that users of dynamically/weakly typed languages require unit tests, implying that users of staticly/strongly typed languages don't.

Of course some languages are safer than others, more expressive than others, faster than others, or whatever. You asserted that software written in dynamically typed languages is unmaintainable, an assertion that I strongly dispute.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: