Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #150139 > unrolled thread

Re: Pre- and post- conditions (was Re: Coding style for small if statements)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Pre- and post- conditions (was Re: Coding style for small if statements) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-02-22 00:01 -0800
    Re: Pre- and post- conditions (was Re: Coding style for small if statements) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-02-22 05:22 -0800
      Re: Pre- and post- conditions (was Re: Coding style for small if statements) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-04-02 07:57 -0700
        Re: Pre- and post- conditions (was Re: Coding style for small if statements) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-04-02 08:28 -0700

#150139 — Re: Pre- and post- conditions (was Re: Coding style for small if statements)

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On 2/11/20 2:19 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> ...
>
>> The thing I have against unit tests is that, for me, writing tests
>> means I don't read the code as carefully. ...
>
> That makes just as much sense, for exactly the same reason, as "I don't
> like washing my hands because it means that I don't feel a need to avoid
> people who are coughing and sneezing, and then I end up catching their
> colds."

Whether the original statement is true or not, the analogy
is flawed.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#150143

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 3:01:53 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 
> > On 2/11/20 2:19 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> The thing I have against unit tests is that, for me, writing tests
> >> means I don't read the code as carefully. ...
> >
> > That makes just as much sense, for exactly the same reason, as "I don't
> > like washing my hands because it means that I don't feel a need to avoid
> > people who are coughing and sneezing, and then I end up catching their
> > colds."
> 
> Whether the original statement is true or not, the analogy
> is flawed.

Of course you feel that way - I don't think you've ever seen an analogy
that you liked. That's not a particularly useful response. A useful
response would identify the flaw, not merely claim that it exists. To
help you identify the flaw, here's the analogy, laid out in full:

1. There's a possible problem that you want to mitigate (delivering
defective code/catching a cold).

2. There's many different measures you can take to mitigate that
problem, two of which are A(unit tests/washing my hands regularly) and
B(reading the code carefully/avoiding contact with people displaying
cold symptoms).

3. The measures are at least somewhat independent, in the sense that
taking both measures will do a significantly better job of mitigating
the problem than using either method alone.

4. The argument is "I don't like taking measure A because doing so
encourages me to be lax about taking measure B".

5. The argument is defective in both cases, because in both cases the
best solution would be to take both measure A and measure B, without
skimping on either one. If you're not willing to do so, that's a
problem with you, not a problem with either remedy.

Would you please identify by number which of those descriptions doesn't
apply well to one or the other of the two problems? Also, please
identify which problem(s) you don't think it applies to, and provide an
explanation of why you feel that way. Please don't bother responding if
you're not willing to provide that explanation - such a response would
be just as useless as the one I'm responding to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150954

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 3:01:53 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/11/20 2:19 AM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> The thing I have against unit tests is that, for me, writing tests
>>>> means I don't read the code as carefully. ...
>>>
>>> That makes just as much sense, for exactly the same reason, as "I don't
>>> like washing my hands because it means that I don't feel a need to avoid
>>> people who are coughing and sneezing, and then I end up catching their
>>> colds."
>>
>> Whether the original statement is true or not, the analogy
>> is flawed.
>
> Of course you feel that way - I don't think you've ever seen an analogy
> that you liked.  That's not a particularly useful response. [...]

It's not my job to educate you.  As a rule I'm not inclined
to try to be helpful to people who seem to go out of their
way to make it difficult to provide help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150958

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 10:57:53 AM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 
> > On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 3:01:53 AM UTC-5, Tim Rentsch wrote:
...
> >> Whether the original statement is true or not, the analogy
> >> is flawed.
> >
> > Of course you feel that way - I don't think you've ever seen an analogy
> > that you liked.  That's not a particularly useful response. [...]
> 
> It's not my job to educate you.  As a rule I'm not inclined
> to try to be helpful to people who seem to go out of their
> way to make it difficult to provide help.

I have to agree that you have no obligation to properly explain your
comments - but you also have no obligation to say anything that makes
any sense whatsoever. Your habit of saying things without providing
needed explanation isn't much more useful than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web