Coding for Quality

[Frantisek Sodomka]

Language Cobra stresses coding for quality.
http://cobra-language.com/docs/quality/

I like some of its ideas, so just wanted to share ;-)

Frantisek

PS: More about the language:
http://cobra-language.com/docs/why/

[Rich Hickey]

On Aug 7, 10:05 pm, "Frantisek Sodomka" <fa...@intricatevisions.com>
wrote:

> Language Cobra stresses coding for quality.http://cobra-language.com/docs/quality/
>

I find this trend of espousing unit tests while failing to question
imperative programming a quite distorted view of quality and whence it
comes.

Clojure allows attaching tests to defns, and now supports validators
for all of the reference types, but has always prioritized writing
sane, locally understandable functional code in the first place. It's
100x more important than unit tests of some imperative spaghetti.

This is a good paper for all who haven't read it:

http://web.mac.com/ben_moseley/frp/paper-v1_01.pdf

Rich

[James Reeves]

On Aug 8, 2:10 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 10:05 pm, "Frantisek Sodomka" <fa...@intricatevisions.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Language Cobra stresses coding for quality.http://cobra-language.com/docs/quality/
>
> I find this trend of espousing unit tests while failing to question
> imperative programming a quite distorted view of quality and whence it
> comes.

Can't one espouse unit tests *and* question imperative programming? :)

--
James

[stuart@gmail]

On Aug 8, 2008, at 1:01 PM, James Reeves wrote:

> Can't one espouse unit tests *and* question imperative programming? :)

Yes! Also, unit testing is a great way for us recovering imperaholics
to keep the ground under our feet while learning new languages and
disciplines.

Stuart

[Rich Hickey]

Absolutely, but the linked-to exemplar was the same old inanity:

set this = that

test this == that

Rich

[Randall R Schulz]

On Friday 08 August 2008 10:27, Rich Hickey wrote:
> On Aug 8, 1:01 pm, James Reeves wrote:
> > ...

> >
> > Can't one espouse unit tests *and* question imperative programming?
> > :)
>
> Absolutely, but the linked-to exemplar was the same old inanity:
>
> set this = that
>
> test this == that

You know compilers, they're not to be trusted!

Or, to quote a former fearless leader: "trust but verify." Whatever that
means...

> Rich

RRS

[Frantisek Sodomka]

I like any kind of effort leading to bug free code and like to share it...

Thanks for the paper!

Frantisek

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:10:49 +0200, Rich Hickey <richh...@gmail.com>
wrote: