From: gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: 2004-05-23T20:38:44+09:00
Subject: Re: How to duck type? - the psychology of static typing in Ruby

il Sun, 23 May 2004 12:18:01 +0200, "Robert Klemme" <bob.news@gmx.net>
ha scritto::


>
>Really?  How will you find those 10%?  Wouldn't you have to look at 100% to
>identify those 10%?
>

I'd say: yes.
You have to look 100% aniway.
Yet, you look in a different manner.

Say you run $rubylint on the code, it shows you 20 possible errors. 
You look them and fix them or ignore them. Then you go on with
testing..

Without $rubylint you just test it. You have to be sure that you wrote
the correct tests, and that you covered everything. And for every
failure you need to rerun the whole piece of code that bringed you to
that failure. 

Without tests you need to run everything, trying to reach every piece
of code in every possible manner at any time.


I believe proper testing could reduce the need for this lint/checker,
yet finding a simple error without running an entire test suite would
be nice.

bIt's just the same thing for $VERBOSE, or -c,
Would you avoid that ?