|The stupid question is the question not asked|
I like Test::LectroTest :)
I think the difference between writing manual tests and using a testcase generator is somewhat analogous to using the CGI html generator functions and print, compared to using a templating module. It's another level of abstraction that ensures the details are accurate taken care of (given a good module), allowing greater productivity.
It also avoids the tendancy to test the wrong things that is so prevalent.
A relevant analogy is building cars. If the guys building engines stopped to physically verify that every nut they used was exactly the right size across the flats; made from steel containing the correct % of carbon; hardened to the approriate
Instead, the nuts are manufactured to a specified tolorance and sampled randomly for compliance against that specification.
Way too many TDD programmers spend time testing the libraries they use (including Perl itself), with tests that they duplicate in every module/program they write, and that are also duplicated by many other programmers. These tests are (should be) done by the authors of those modules. If there is any doubt that the module/library/program is well-tested, then it can be verifed (once) by the organisation before certifying it for use, but there after, programmers within that organisation should rely upon it to comply with it's specification. Not re-test the same things over and over in every program that uses it.
That's the essence of DBC.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
The "good enough" maybe good enough for the now, and perfection maybe unobtainable, but that should not preclude us from striving for perfection, when time, circumstance or desire allow.
In reply to Re: Test::LectroTest and pseudo random distributions