News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Most Unit Testing is Waste (2014) [pdf] by tracker1 on Monday May 30, 2016 @01:10AM (#11799671)
I'd counter that with dynamic language, easy modularization and the ability to create single function modules that are composable, and written as such, that code is more easily understood and doesn't require the same type of testing as more complex systems in static language, that lend to layers of indirection and complexity for the sake of testability.

I'm not saying that testing isn't needed in either place, but a lot of the times "enterprise" practices that leak into scripted environments make code far more complicated and difficult to understand than it needs to be.

Re:Why Most Unit Testing is Waste (2014) [pdf] by majewsky on Monday May 30, 2016 @10:42AM (#11801546)
Why do you assume that modules in a statically-typed language are necessarily more complex? (Except for the type annotations, of course.)

Not every statically-typed language is Java. ;)

Re:Why Most Unit Testing is Waste (2014) [pdf] by tracker1 on Tuesday May 31, 2016 @01:43PM (#11808375)
True, it does depend on the language... C#, for example is limited to Namespaces and Classes, you can't write a simple function without a lot of wrapper... partial & static classes help, but it's not the same.

Though, I will say writing tests against and with a dynamic language tends to be far easier when things are written with modularity in mind.