| > Feynman argues for unit tests I'm not sure that would be my takeaway from that quote. In the analogy of Unit testing, the test would have found the cracks in the turbine blades. It seems to me that Feynman continuously argues for deep investigation into any problems encountered, rather than (seemingly) ignoring them or making up excuses for why they're not problems. He regards independent code verifications and testing highly, it seems: > The software is checked very carefully in a bottom-up fashion. First, each new line of code is checked, then sections of code or modules with special functions are verified. The scope is increased step by step until the new changes are incorporated into a complete system and checked. This complete output is considered the final product, newly released. But completely independently there is an independent verification group, that takes an adversary attitude to the software development group, and tests and verifies the software as if it were a customer of the delivered product. There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc. A discovery of an error during verification testing is considered very serious, and its origin studied very carefully to avoid such mistakes in the future. I'd consider this quote a clear argument for unit testing though: > There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc. In the end, it seems to come down to the simple concept of: spending more time on verifying code results in better code. Whether it is through automated testing, code reviews, independent (and competent) user acceptance testing, etc. |