Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes: > * Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions > outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists <[email protected]> > [2026-03-30 02:11]: >> I mean: if *you* have exhaustive test code, who reads it? > > I don't have exhaustive test code. I test function by function, by > evaluating it and seeing "oh, it does work". … > I don't ever do "exhaustive tests", I am using programs I make > practically, and the use shows when something is wrong or needs more > functionality.
So most of the code you don’t read and most of the tests you don’t read. This thread of the discussion started with you saying: > There is way to be sure that code works, and that is by testing and > seeing it functions. … > Certainty you get by testing and seeing functionality. It is > individual human state. > > True certainty can be obtained by testing functions and seeing if they > are doing what is meant to be. So if I understand your stance correctly, by certainty you only mean, that its results during execution match what you expect. So all the tooling around it (tests, checking instructions, generated code, …) only has the goal to push the effects close enough to your expectations that you don’t observe problems. That the LLM generates test code is then just an implementation detail, purely needed to keep the LLM from going too far off track. And that it generates code at all just serves to avoid having to spin up the full LLM for every step. Did I understand that correctly? Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. https://www.draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
