Unit tests are like the second half of a watermelon. It exists, yet no one needs it.

You only need it if you're a misanthrope who wasn't invited when everyone else ate the first half.

Also, if you neglect them you'll end up with a very large piece of mould in your fridge/repo

@lbfalvy you spent quite a time making up this one didn't you

@kiki About a minute, I like watermelons even more than repos that come with self-verifying usage examples in the form of tests so I'm familiar with the grievances.

We fundamentally agree in that static analysis is the best way to guarantee correctness. I insist on tests because there are issues that no amount of analysis can catch, but analysis - and languages that lend themselves to it - can and should be used to replace as many tests as possible. It's the hubris of the claim that tests can be replaced entirely that I disagree with. Replacing tests is the wrong approach to static analysis, just like replacing QA is the wrong approach to automated tests. These tools help to take care of a segment of problems so that the level above can be smaller and the associated costs lower.

@lbfalvy my emotional response: fuck you, tests bad

my rational response:

1. For the tasks I'm solving, I think I disagree.

1. For an arbitrary engineering task, namely interpreters, I kinda-sorta agree.

Anyway, peace