Hacker News Reader

Comment by braindead_in | Hacker News Reader

> but a human still has to read that code and make sure that it does what you think it does.

Why not just write tests instead? If you have 100% test coverage, would you care about the code?

If you're talking about coverage in the usual sense (% of lines that were executed), it's pretty much useless. Here's an example of 100% test coverage in that sense:

  add a b = 2
  test_add = assert_equals (add 1 1) 2

A more useful definition of coverage would be the entire possible state of the program, but this is tantamount to a proof, which is a really hard problem for programs in general. Property based testing, e.g. QuickCheck[1], gets us close, but it is often hard to come up with the right properties.

[1]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/QuickCheck

who will write the test

Humans, with a lot of help from LLMs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com