> plus writing unit tests gave me stable code as well, without pulling my hair out
apart from the generalization i tend to agree
from uncle bob's article [1]:
> My own prediction is that TDD is the deciding factor. You don’t need static type checking if you have 100% unit test coverage. And, as we have repeatedly seen, unit test coverage close to 100% can, and is, being achieved. What’s more, the benefits of that achievement are enormous.
I've worked on high mantainable big JS projects (+40 devs) with 80%-90% test coverage. plus we were using GraphQL so inputs were valid types somehow.
if I start a new project today I would use only these technics (valid inputs + integration test) with no typed lang.
apart from the generalization i tend to agree
from uncle bob's article [1]:
> My own prediction is that TDD is the deciding factor. You don’t need static type checking if you have 100% unit test coverage. And, as we have repeatedly seen, unit test coverage close to 100% can, and is, being achieved. What’s more, the benefits of that achievement are enormous.
I've worked on high mantainable big JS projects (+40 devs) with 80%-90% test coverage. plus we were using GraphQL so inputs were valid types somehow.
if I start a new project today I would use only these technics (valid inputs + integration test) with no typed lang.
[1] http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2016/05/01/TypeWars.htm...