Quote of the week

[Ben Finney]

> "If it's not important enough to require tests it's not important
> enough to be in Python." -- Ethan Furman

Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> writes:

> Yes, the smiley was acknowledgement that testing is hard, will never
> be perfect, and we only have so much time -- but thorough tests should
> still be the goal.

I agree with the statement in full. I wonder what Terry disagrees with
in that statement.

It's not saying that *all code* in Python must have tests, no matter how
difficult that is. Difficulty is not addressed in the statement.

It's saying that if code is so *unimportant* that it doesn't require
tests, then that code is below the threshold of importance for keeping
in Python.

That is a statement that appears clearly right. I'd be surprised at any
defensible counter-example: code that is both “not important enough to
require tests”, *and* important enough to be in Python.

Perhaps disagreement would hinge on differing ideas of “important” and
“require” in the context of core Python. If so, those both seem like
judgements the Python core developers get to make; and so, I still agree
with the statement in full.

-- 
 \          “A hundred times every day I remind myself that […] I must |
  `\       exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have |
_o__)                received and am still receiving” —Albert Einstein |
Ben Finney