Hacker News Reader

Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Is your codebase 100% covered by unit tests?

You don't have to make sure all the angles of your house are perfect right angles, but there's probably a couple that really have to be. Formally verify those and live with manageable imperfection for the rest.

View on HN

"All or nothing" is not the point I'm making, it's "any or nothing." Unittests frequently have justifiable value for their effort, even when only providing partial coverage. I'm arguing that the effort involved in creating formal proofs for any part of your software is almost never worth the benefits, outside of mission critical applications, when a dozen simple unittests could provide 99.99% confidence. And certainly not worth it enough to become "mainstream", which is the title of the post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com