Re: Testing relational databases

Bob Badour wrote:

>> Cite some of his idiocy here, so we may examine it, please.
>
> I already did. Next time pay more attention.

> http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3161496.htm

That's by Fabian, not Scott.

> I won't repeat myself again:

Good!

That site is unreadable nonsense. It begins with the kind of endless /argumentum ad hominem/ that instantly tell me the author is not serious.

> How does the idiot Ambler address the observations Dijkstra made 37 years
> ago regarding the futility of relying on unit tests? See for instance,
> EWD268:
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD02xx/EWD268.html
>
> Has the idiot demonstrated the least bit of awareness of Dijkstra's
> argument? Or does Ambler's writing suggest a more blissful condition?

Thanks for quoting Dijkstra - I'm sure the flames will be more clever and subtle now.

"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!"

We /rely/ on this argument. Tests never have and never will prove the absense of bugs. However, the earlier you write them, the closer to development, then the more your entire process resists bugs. This is not very difficult to understand.

The goal is code designed for testing, so that tests and clean code, together, can inhibit bugs. So if you design BY testing, then you are in the best position to possibly discover the remaining few.

A smart person, carefully reading my last paragraph, will notice that I did not say, "unit tests prevent all bugs". Everyone knows this, and pretending we don't is a poor tactic.

-- 
  Phlip
  http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!