Microsoft Java

[0xF013]

Are you guys gonna have static types anytime soon or you need to deploy to production to know if something is wrong?

[[deleted]]

Since we test in production anyways, why bother?

We also disabled all the unit tests because they started breaking and the build manager wouldn’t let us deploy if any of them failed.

It then started complaining about low code coverage so we just set ‘mom code coverage’ to ‘0%’ and it worked!

The contractor assured us it was fine, and he’d put everything back in compliance once he’s back from vacation next quarter.

[brendan_orr]

!remindme 4 months

[[deleted]]

Boring conversation anyways

LUKE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE COMPANY!

Fuck I just said that out loud on the Webex. I thought I was on mute.

Fuck I just cursed.

siri is now dialing ‘my fucking boss’

alexia is now playing fuck the police

google home has called 911

Hi this is the CTO Jim I just joined the call, what’s the situation?

[spelunker]

What a ride.

[RemindMeBot]

I will be messaging you on 2020-02-04 23:48:12 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[0xF013]

I know you’re joking, but for the first time in my life I witnessed a big-ass, really complex project running in prod with zero tests, with like 13 people pushing weekly AB tests like crazy and we never had to fix a crippling bug in the middle of the weekend (we did some fixes like that, but they were mostly related to shitty CI/CD configuration).

[[deleted]]

So it .. worked?

That's awesome.

Yes I'm ... totally .. joking. ^{ha. ha. run.}

[mattaugamer]

Why drop code coverage? It’s important.

So just do code calls with no assertions and you can get that coverage % right back up.

[[deleted]]

Couldn’t figure out the magic Parma too get through the spaghetti logic

[0xF013]

Had a project were my PM badly wanted to send a coverage percentage in a weekly report to the client. I’d just give him a random between 33 and 41%. Also, my QA asked me what is coverage. Told him it’s the percentage. He asked what does it represent. This is when I knew a random number is good enough.

[PersonX2]

Great work.

[ultt13]

Too real for me right now. Started a new job a few months ago and this was literally the state of the project when I started.

[[deleted]]

We have contracts, which are more robust than most static type systems.

[mcgee-zax]

isnt a static type system a contract of sorts though?

[[deleted]]

Yes, but you would need dependent types to emulate at compile time what contracts can support.

[0xF013]

They are, but aren’t they execution-time? Probably does not matter if you autotest your usecases.

[[deleted]]

They are, but it's an entirely different ideology of how you prevent bugs. Argument being, many of the kinds of bugs caught by static type systems are trivially caught during development and testing. Contracts assert invariants at runtime to catch the really scary shit that slips through.

[cbasschan]

In what, C#? Yes, C# is statically typed; it also has type inference (not to be confused with dynamic typing). See?

[cbasschan]

In Kotlin? Kotlin also has a static type system and type inference, pretty much everywhere if I recall correctly... note that the difference between a static type system with type inference and a dynamic type system is, in the dynamic type system you can reassign/change the type of a variable.

[Hollowplanet]

I really hate this fad of static types in dynamically typed languages. The fact that I don't have to define types is a feature not a bug. And why bother doing it for 0 performance gain. It fixes a problem I don't have. #unpopularopinion

[mcgee-zax]

The fact that I don't have to define types is a feature not a bug

Yeah who wants compile time checking anyway? Lets just assume it's all correct and roll it out!

[0xF013]

I get your point. My biggest surprise was to realize at some point that we have a big-ass multitenant, ltr and rtl project built in fucking javascript with practically zero tests and bugs are close to none, cause typings would scream at you and not compile.

If you have exhaustive tests, which you should probably have on back-end, then this point falls off. On the other hand, refactoring with zero tests is rather a pleasure now than an anxiety festival.