News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust testing or verifying: Why not both?. Parent comment

Re:Rust testing or verifying: Why not both? by marcosdumay on Friday September 04, 2020 @02:22PM (#24377543)
> One other point that matters is time: running 20k unit and integration tests to verify the types are all correct for your 6kloc will take much longer than compiling 6kloc

I'll disagree here. The kind of thing you can verify at compile-time can be tested very quickly, and compilers with less useful type systems can be much faster. All in, the tests are probably faster to run.

But yeah, compilers do make a better job on incremental validation. That's probably intrinsic; validation is very likely more prone to be incremental than tests.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust testing or verifying: Why not both? by aw1621107 on Friday September 04, 2020 @04:24PM (#24378543)
> The kind of thing you can verify at compile-time can be tested very quickly

I’m not sure I entirely agree with this. For example, a type system can ensure a function is always called with the right units, but testing that every use of the function is correct might be a lot more tedious, depending on the code base.

> and compilers with less useful type systems can be much faster.

This depends very heavily on the language (e.g., OCaml being a language with a relatively complex type system that also compiled fairly quickly), but Id agree that what you said appears to be the general trend.

[ Parent | on HN ]