This thinking seems... backward (or at least overall counterproductive/like more work) to me. Do you not have a test suite? At least, unit tests for core language features? It seems (with all due respect) a bit irresponsible not to have this, it would at least prevent most regressions in tested code for example (such as breaking "for" loops, as someone else mentioned)
Zig has thousands of tests, but the problem space of a programming language is pretty big, making fuzzing and other similar techniques worth the effort in the long run. The discussion wasn't about the existence of basic unit tests.
I also possibly misinterpreted someone else's comment about "for" breaking, assuming it was a regression instead of an intended syntax change which might have been covered by units. My bad
This thinking seems... backward (or at least overall counterproductive/like more work) to me. Do you not have a test suite? At least, unit tests for core language features? It seems (with all due respect) a bit irresponsible not to have this, it would at least prevent most regressions in tested code for example (such as breaking "for" loops, as someone else mentioned)