On 2002.05.13, Dennis Newbold <dennisn / pe.net> wrote:
> One of the things that I really like about Ruby is that it doesn't
> require something (e.g., a variable, a method, an object) to be there
> until you actually execute the code that references that entity.
> It makes rapid prototyping, piece-wise testing, and piece-wise refinement
> really nice.  However, its a two edged sword in that errors in little
> executed pieces of code (e.g., the "else" clause of a case statement,
> rescue clauses may contain bugs that may not show up until much later
> in the development phase, and which may have been easier to fix if
> found earlier.  One possible way around this (there may be others that
> I haven't thought of, suggestions are welcome) [...]

Unit testing?

What if you wrote test cases that exercised all of your code?
Even those odd, edge case rarely-used execution paths?

-- Dossy

-- 
Dossy Shiobara                       mail: dossy / panoptic.com 
Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/ 
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)