Thread 106250739

Aren't you testing the program already by running it the first time?

>>106250739 (OP)
Yeah OP, let's test a program that flies airplanes by having it fly a real plane and seeing if it crashes

>>106250809
that's called Reinforcement Learning

>>106250739 (OP)
yeah, we should just let humans check every program path manually, what could go wrong?

>>106250739 (OP)
Testing? It's so you can try aspects of the program in lots of different ways without having to take an absolute age to do it all manually. I want the computer to do the boring work for me.

>>106250809
>>106251093
this is the best joke ever told on /g/ pack it up buoys lets all go home

microsoft's q&a motto during the nadella era

>>106250739 (OP)
That's implying it'll run

what manga is this AWESOME panel from.

>>106250739 (OP)
Testing the program manually is easier than writing tests.

Running tests is easier than testing the program manually every time you change something.

>>106252374
tower dungeon is better, same artist

>>106250739 (OP)
to catch regressions as time progresses and the codebase changes

>>106252225
This, kek. Beats the humor threads.

You test against a state you are looking for. What is the objective of the program. And sometimes when you run the program the objective is not achieved and you wonder why.

You can reach the reason why the results you did expect were not achieve creating small test units to determine in ordered sequence what component is failing in your solution and that gives you clues how to solve the fault.

>by running it the first time
>what are libraries
a thread died for this