If you’re not using a language that can properly support algebraic structures and randomized property-based testing you’re essentially getting no guarantees about your code from tests. You wrote the code, you wrote the tests, they’re equally likely to be incorrect.
Humble-brag about how he uses "a language that can properly support algebraic structures and randomized property-based testing" whatever the hell that is.
Personally I use python and solve real world problems.
My statement is clear and straightforward, I’m not sure how to put it any other way. LLM-generated tests don’t make sense as a concept because there are only roughly five properties you actually need to write tests for if you’re writing tests that actually provide any guarantees.
Apologies, but I understand the English words you're typing but I'm still not sure of the intent you're trying to convey to everyone. You're conversing in a very rigid style which isn't sympathetic to how people typically interact.
I could just leave the discussion I guess, but in the interest of discourse, I don't find your statement meaningful because we're not all working in languages that I think you refer to. Our unit tests are absolutely not perfect and don't offer perfect guarantees, as we're fallible and will write fallible code.
And as such, I just don't understand what point you're trying to make by saying that LLM generated tests are no good because they can't offer perfect guarantees.
Ah that makes sense to me, I see where I misunderstood you. When you say you don’t understand what you mean is that you do understand but you disagree with the point.
I’m on mobile so it’s hard to reference what I previously said but I’m assuming my statement needs to be weakened a bit to be correct. What I meant to say was that unit tests provide essentially no value because they can’t offer perfect guarantees, which is probably different than what I originally said. I’m assuming I just said “they offer no value” which is probably false in some cases for some people and some teams depending on their definition of value. My point was that unit tests do not make sense insofar as their purpose is to provide guarantees about the behavior of code because the information they provide does not meet the standard definition of “a guarantee”. For the above mentioned people/teams/situations/value definitions, they may make sense.
Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.
Regarding languages, algebraic structures can be implemented in any Turing complete language. Likewise with property-based testing (with, eg randomized inputs across the domain). I’d be willing to guess it’s just a matter of education and/or desire keeping most developers from using it.
