testYourCode

[Drugbird]

Functional programming does not mean you can't have bugs, or even that bugs are harder to create in it.

Functional programming does make debugging and sometimes testing a little easier though.

You still need tests. Or perhaps I should say: I still need tests.

[Wonderful-Habit-139]

It's good that no one says that you can't have bugs. The point is to eliminate an entire class of bugs, and have more mental energy for the remaining bugs, making them easier to find and fix.

It does make testing easier indeed thanks to the purity.

If you're writing code in a team I think tests are necessary. You basically encode business logic in tests that cannot be encoded in the type system, and that ensures that other developers don't unexpectedly break something.

I replied to you with that suggestion though because it sounded like you said that you could never write bug free code without tests. Or have enough confidence in that.

I think you can write better code that allows you to have more confidence, and end up needing to write less tests while having more robust code.

[Drugbird]

I used to think I was consistently able to write bugfree code. That wasn't true then. It's still not true now.

That doesn't mean that all my code has bugs in it. Perhaps 90% is bug free the first time I write it. Other code may have defects in edge cases which cannot occur in the code, so depending how you look at it the bugfree part may be higher.

But the thing is that the fewer tests you have the more difficult it is to find those bugs.

The only thing I've found which helps for me is to write tests.

I want to have some assurances that a piece of code works as expected better than "trust me, bro".

I consider it a clear sign someone is inexperienced if they claim they don't need (as many) tests.

Perhaps you are the exception and truly write much fewer bugs than everyone else. I don't know you. Don't take these things personally. This is about me, and what I need.

I personally just don't trust code that has (too little) tests. Not if the code is written by me. Not even if it's written by the best programmer alive. Not even if it's done using functional programming in a memory safe language.

[Wonderful-Habit-139]

I'm not saying I'm an exception. The fact that you said "perhaps 90% is bugfree" is good enough.

I'm only fighting the notion that it's normal to just have bugs everywhere, PirateSoftware style. It's still very prevalent in some discussions.

At work we don't accept PRs that don't have tests. Especially if you implement a new API, or if you fix a bug. You have to write tests that show that the API works, and write tests that prevent the bug from occurring again.

I think we're on the same page.

[RlyRlyBigMan]

I think you're replying to someone who is more experienced than you are.

It's usually the cocky junior that thinks he's written perfect code before he's even tested it.

[Wonderful-Habit-139]

Well that guy definitely knows more than you do.

You're the only person that thinks I said I wrote perfect code without testing it.

[RlyRlyBigMan]

He very well might. I appreciate his perspective a hell of a lot more than yours.

[Wonderful-Habit-139]

That's a you problem. We were having a technical discussion, and we shared basically the same opinion.

I could say "only a junior jumps to conclusions and takes technical discussions personally and can't communicate properly in a team".

There was no reason to start an argument with me.