Luc Taesch ltaesch@REDACTED
Wed Aug 23 01:39:56 CEST 2000

> I'm not sure I really understand his adopted mindset, though maybe
> that comes from having worked in dynamic languages extensively.
> Programming in dynamic languages does require a change in operational
> development mindset; the compiler no longer catches some kinds of
> errors for you, but is better at catching/adapting to others.  Using
> the same kind of write-compile-rewrite cycle doesn't make sense.  (I
> end up having the interpreter running, and literally "testing as I
> go."  Probably end up testing more things that could go wrong than
> even the type system would catch, really.)

I'll come from a heavily typed and statically typed and linked enviroenmemnt (Eiffel),

and since im doing erlang for 1 month now, I understand  what u said, and came to the same conclusion:

the less typed, the more dynymically typed the language is, the more u need test rather than relying on the compiler/linker .

ive experimenting XP (extreme programming ) approach recently, which put the focus on testing heavily, , and its not surprising that the originators of that (ward/beck) are smalltalker (which is dynamically typed).

in their case, its not an option !

but do u have a test suite internally, at ericsson, which was not open-sourced ? is it alinke these Xunit test suite ?

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list