From: "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2008-09-13T14:25:57+09:00
Subject: Re: How to use this Combinatorial testing technique


On Sep 12, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Caleb Clausen wrote:

>>
>> i think our minds are quite good at this - we have to select the  
>> data,
>> write the coverage tools, the testing tools, the ci tools, and the
>> code itself after all.  clearly software we write cannot be more
>> effective that the people writing it.
>
> I for one am not so confident about my ability to get all the edges on
> my own. Tools are nice for things like exhaustive coverage of piddly
> little details. I'm not so sure exactly what you're trying to get at
> in the paragraph above, but it's always seemed the most pragmatic to
> me to employ a combination of things. No tool will understand your
> code for you, but the right tool can significantly enhance your
> understanding of your code.


what i was trying get across was

   . ruby presents some challenges for really good code tools, at  
least with the current impl

   . we can address some of the shortcomings *today* with processes  
that involve people

   . i trust the current crop of people more that the current crop of  
tools.  this may change in the future.

   . it's important as a community to share good processes for  
thinking about code.

   . lack of tools should not become a red herring in the community.   
most shortcomings in code tools should probably wait to be developed,  
helping instrument the language to support a new breed of tools might  
be a better use of energy.

so yeah, we are probably saying close to the same thing.

cheers.

a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama