The Rust Libs Blitz

Post by Nomentatus » Sun, May 07, 2017, 1:37 AM UTC

seqastian wrote: post #101

eriknstr wrote: post #100

The article also links the state of rust survey. I visited the survey with intent to answer it but the first question "Do you use Rust?" only has the following three alternatives for an answer: - "Yes" - "No, I stopped using Rust" - "No, I've never used Rust" When making a survey the alternatives for the answers are very important. I feel that none of these alternatives apply to me. That's bad. Unfortunate because I…

So, just take YES and move on? Surveys are about trends not about absolutes.

Post by yazaddaruvala » Sun, May 07, 2017, 5:03 AM UTC

burntsushi wrote: post #112

kilotaras wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code coverage in itself isn't a very useful metric. Classic example is big test with no asserts will get you pretty good coverage. There's a rather computationally intensive technique called mutation testing where you introduce bugs into code (e.g. change + to -, flip conditionals, etc.) and check that tests fail.

Code coverage has been useful to me in practice, so I think blanket statements like "code coverage isn't useful" is very misleading. For example, code coverage has helped me identify specific branches in my code that are untested, which in turn help guide me to write additional unit tests. You don't need to completely dismiss other testing techniques. Mutation testing can be useful at the same time that code coverage…

Post by IshKebab » Sun, May 07, 2017, 8:49 AM UTC

ssdfe wrote: post #89

I do wish cargo packages were namespaced a la Github. Squatting on usernames is one thing, but package and project names are often the only way you hear about something. cargo react-svg might be a terrible project or a good quality one maintained by facebook, but you wouldn't know from the name. Because of the name, it'll be at least somewhat downloaded if that's a common need. It makes grouping by org difficult too.