Hacker Read

khedoros | karma 1031 | avg karma 1.7 · 2016-06-29 19:46:53+00:00

It's perfectly possible to write a function with a small enough set of arguments to make it practical to exhaustively test.

StrykerKKD | karma 19 | avg karma 0.95 · 2016-06-29 20:15:06

Well it's possible, but how many developer would rather make a new type for using the first ten integer instead of just using int?

I think random testing is a good way to get almost exhaustively tests.

reply

khedoros | karma 1031 | avg karma 1.7 · 2016-06-29 20:27:19

A developer that uses a narrower integer data type, or who wants to be clear that the argument is a member of an enumerated set of options, not an integer. What kind of developer represents non-integer data as an integer data type?

> I think random testing is a good way to get almost exhaustively tests.

I think that testing known/predictable edge and corner cases makes more sense (in some cases), but I also think that I was responding to a comment about the impossibility of using tests to prove correctness of a function, not about how to derive practical benefits despite theoretical limitations.

reply

StrykerKKD | karma 19 | avg karma 0.95 · 2016-06-29 21:01:28+00:00

You are right, I didn't think the example through.

You are right, you can use tests to prove a function if - the function has very limited arguments and - the function is pure or does very limited amount of state change(side effect)

Generally speaking tests are not the right tool for proving program correctness.

reply

8note | karma 4988 | avg karma 1.12 · 2016-06-30 00:46:33+00:00

integers are frequently used to represent fixed point numbers anytime you're doing interesting math in an embedded system

khedoros | karma 1031 | avg karma 1.7 · 2016-06-30 03:23:16

And old PC hardware, where you aren't guaranteed to have an FPU, or where integer operations were a lot quicker than FP ones.