| >> So you'd prefer your contracts to blow up your bugs in your clients' faces, rather than catch bugs yourself prior to releasing the code to them?! > That's you arguing against contracts. No. Notice what I wrote earlier? Where I very specifically said "contracts are awesome but not substitutes for unit tests"? That's exactly the same thing I was saying here. I was arguing against relying on contracts to catch the bugs unit tests would've caught. Nobody was ever telling you to avoid contracts anywhere. Like I said, they're awesome, and both are valuable. I'm just saying they don't substitute for your unit tests. Just like how screwdrivers don't substitute for hammers, as awesome as both are. > Saying contracts shouldn't run in shipped code misses the whole point about what contracts are. I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth. > No, unit tests test a portion of the software before shipping. My argument is they aren't worth the cost and provide little value. [...] I just gave you a detailed, point-by-point explanation of what you've been missing in the other thread with your own purported counterexamples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41287473 Repeating your stance doesn't make it more correct. |