in reply to Re^2: Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut.
in thread Testing methodology, best practices and a pig in a hut.
Yet for some modules, the test suite is fully a third of the code produced.
It's a big chunk of Pugs, Rakudo, Parrot, and Perl 5 as well.
Now I'm all for better abstractions and reducing the amount of work to get the right results correctly (I did extract Test::Builder to make this possible for testing, after all), but complaining that a certain unnamed hypothetical test suite seems big to you is just as silly as complaining that you used string eval in a certain unnamed hypothetical production program.
The interesting question to me is "Why?" I agree that a blanket prohibition on one or the other is unhelpful just as I agree that a blanket prohibition on the use of symbolic references or even indirect object notation is unhelpful and likely wrong. That doesn't mean I want to throw a novice head-first into the whole debate over all of subtleties of community idioms and best principles when all he or she wants to do is know why the program doesn't work.