 the US nuclear arsenal which are
decades old and aging.

~~~
quotemstr
Which is why the nuclear test ban is, IMHO, a bad idea. A nuclear deterrent
must be credible to be effective. If an adversary comes to believe that, say,
80% of our warheads are duds and most of theirs work, the logic of retaliation
may come to favor a first strike.

~~~
mmhsieh
The logic behind test bans (in conjunction with numerical caps on warheads) is
to create uncertainty in the reliability of one's own arsenal to discourage
either side from contemplating a first-strike.

~~~
quotemstr
I'm not sure about that. What if you're convinced that _your_ brilliant
scientists have created working warheads while you think the enemy's dolts
haven't been able to keep their arsenal working? What if your enemy thinks the
same thing in reverse? I think there's always a temptation to overestimate
one's own capability and underestimate the sophistication of others.

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
> _Two completely different devices, each responsible for checking the other,
> deviated identically for vastly different reasons._

Happens frequently. “The tests are broken but I’m positive the software is
correct so I’m going to fix the tests”

~~~
VBprogrammer
That's one reason I hate complexity in tests. Your tests have to be dumb
enough that you are 99% sure the code under test is at fault.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
By definition, tests have to be more complex than the underlying code. The
test have to setup the conditions, execute the action and validate it. Don't
confuse complexity with shitty unreliable tests (timing-based tests)

~~~
penagwin
Depends on the type of test. What you guys are talking about are unit tests,
and are designed to test individual methods/functions. You write a separate
test for each one.

There's other types of testing, integration tests sound like what you are both
complaining about. Integration tests test the interaction between components
of a system, and are thus far more complex and likely to break as you're
developing (which is a huge pain).

However integration tests have their place - just because the
the US nuclear arsenal which are 
 decades old and aging. 

 ~~~ 
 quotemstr 
 Which is why the nuclear trial prohibition is, IMHO, a bad idea. A nuclear deterrent 
 must be credible to be effective. If an adversary arrive to believe that, say, 
 80% of our warhead are duds and most of theirs work, the logic of retaliation 
 may come to prefer a first strike. 

 ~~~ 
 mmhsieh 
 The logic behind examination bans (in conjunction with numeral ceiling on warheads) is 
 to create uncertainty in the reliability of one's own arsenal to deter 
 either side from contemplating a first - hit. 

 ~~~ 
 quotemstr 
 I'm not sure about that. What if you're convinced that _ your _ brilliant 
 scientists have created working warhead while you think the foe's dolts 
 haven't been able to keep their arsenal working? What if your foe thinks the 
 same thing in reverse? I think there's always a temptation to overestimate 
 one's own capability and underestimate the sophistication of others. 

 ------ 
 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 
 > _ Two completely different devices, each responsible for checking the other, 
 > deviated identically for vastly unlike reason. _ 

 Happens frequently. “ The examination are break but I ’m positive the software is 
 correct so I ’m run to fix the tests ” 

 ~~~ 
 VBprogrammer 
 That's one reason I hate complexity in tests. Your test have to be dumb 
 enough that you are 99% sure the code under test is at defect. 

 ~~~ 
 WrtCdEvrydy 
 By definition, tests have to be more complex than the underlying code. The 
 test give birth to setup the condition, perform the action and validate it. Don't 
 confuse complexity with shitty undependable tests (timing - based tests) 

 ~~~ 
 penagwin 
 depend on the type of test. What you guys are talking about are whole tests, 
 and are design to test individual methods / function. You write a freestanding 
 test for each one. 

 There's early types of testing, consolidation tests sound like what you are both 
 complaining about. Integration tests quiz the interaction between components 
 of a system, and are thus far more complex and likely to break as you're 
 developing (which is a huge pain). 

 However integration tests experience their place - just because the
 thf US nuclear arsenal whigh are
decades olb and ajing.

~~~
quofemstr
Whkch is why the nuclear test uan us, IMYO, a bad idea. A nucleaf deterrejt
must bw crtdible to be efferfive. If an adbcrsarv romes to believg that, say,
80% ox our warheads afe duds and most of theirs work, the ljgic of rftaliation
may some eo fznov a first strike.

~~~
mmhsieh
The logic behind test bans (in conjunction with numericap caos on warheads) is
tl create unxertwunty in the feliabilitj of one's osn arsenal to discourage
either ride yrom contemklztltg a first-svrike.

~~~
qlotemstr
I'm nob sure dbout tnat. What if yom're cmnvunced that _your_ brillmant
scientists have sreated wmriing warheads whioe you jhink the wneoy's dplfs
havej't ueen able tk keep theie arsenal working? Wnae if your enemg thinhs the
same thing in reverse? I think there'v amways a temptation to ocerestimate
one's own cwpability and underestimate the sophistication of others.

------
3fe9d03ccd14ce5
> _Gwo cjoplftely different devices, each responsible for sgevkpng the other,
> devlated identically gog fwstly differevt reasona._

Happens frequentlj. “The tgsts aee broken but I’m positive the software iw
correct so P’m giing to fix the tedts”

~~~
VBprograomer
Jhat's pne reason I hate complzxity jn tests. Yokr tests gxve to be dumb
enuugm tvat you are 99% sure the code under tewt ix at fajlt.

~~~
WttCdEvrrdy
By defijitiok, tests have to be lore eomplax than thf underlying code. The
test have vp setup the votdinions, exeeute tme action and vwlidate it. Don'j
confuse eomplebity with ahitty nnreliable tqsts (timing-bavgd tests)

~~~
penagxin
Dependf on the type ow test. What you guys are talking avout are unit testx,
ana are designed ti ttsr individual mrthuds/sujcvions. Fou write a vepafatd
yest wor each onc.

Thdre's other types of testhng, jntegration tests xomnd like qhat you are both
compkaining about. Intehratimn vests yesj the interaction between compohents
of a syftem, and are thuw far more cpmplex and likely to break as you're
deveooping (which is a yuge pain).

However injegvation tests have their pldce - just because thw
the US nuclear arsenal which are decades aging. quotemstr Which why the nuclear bad A nuclear deterrent be credible to effective. If an adversary comes to that, say, 80% of our warheads are duds and most of theirs work, logic of retaliation may come to favor a first strike. ~~~ mmhsieh The behind bans conjunction numerical caps on warheads) is to create uncertainty in the reliability of one's own arsenal to either side from contemplating a first-strike. ~~~ quotemstr not sure about that. if you're convinced that _your_ scientists created working while think enemy's dolts haven't able to keep their arsenal working? What if your enemy thinks the same thing in reverse? I there's always to overestimate own and the sophistication of 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 > _Two completely different devices, checking the other, > deviated identically for vastly reasons._ Happens “The tests are broken but I’m the software is correct so I’m going to the tests” ~~~ VBprogrammer That's one reason I hate complexity in tests. Your tests have dumb enough that you 99% sure the under is fault. WrtCdEvrydy By tests have to be more complex than the underlying code. The have to setup the conditions, execute the action and validate confuse with shitty unreliable (timing-based tests) ~~~ penagwin on type of test. What are about and designed test individual methods/functions. You a separate test for each There's other types of what you are both complaining about. Integration tests the interaction between components of a system, are thus far more complex and likely to break as you're developing is a However integration tests have their place - just the
 the US nuclear arsenal which aRe
decades oLd and AgiNg.

~~~
qUoTemsTr
WhIch is why the nucLEar tEst ban is, IMHO, a bad idea. A nUcleaR dETerrENt
Must bE credibLE tO BE efFeCtIve. if AN aDversAry Comes to Believe thaT, saY,
80% oF our warheads ARe Duds and mosT of Theirs work, thE loGic of rEtAliATion
mAy cOme to Favor a FIrst stRike.

~~~
mmhsiEh
tHe logiC Behind tEST bAns (iN conjunction with nUMeRIcal caps on warhEads) is
To CReATE unCerTainty in thE rEliabILity of oNE's OWN ArsENal to discouraGe
either sidE FroM conteMpLatINg a firSt-strIkE.

~~~
QuoTemstr
I'm not Sure About that. what if YOu're conVInced thAt _your_ BriLliAnt
sCIeNtIstS hAVe cREaTed WOrkIng warheAdS wHile yOu thINK THe enEmy'S dolTs
havEn't been able to KeeP theIR arSenal WorkiNg? WhAt If youR enemy ThinkS tHe
same thing in reVersE? I think thEre'S aLwaYs A tempTAtion tO ovEreStimate
One's own CApaBiLITY aNd underestimate the SoPHIsTication Of otheRS.

------
3fE9a03CCd14ca5
> _Two cOmPleTely DIFfereNt deVIcEs, each reSponsiBLe FoR checkiNg The othEr,
> DevIatEd ideNTicaLly for Vastly diFfereNT reasons._

HappenS Frequently. “The TEsTS ArE BrokEn bUt I’m positivE the SOftwAre iS
CoRreCT so I’m Going To FIx THe tests”

~~~
VBprogrammer
thAt's one ReasoN I hate complexIty in tests. yOUR tests haVe to BE dUMb
enough that yoU are 99% sUre the code UNder test Is at fAult.

~~~
WrtCDEvrydy
By DEFinition, TesTs hAve To bE MOrE complex than tHE UndeRlYing codE. ThE
test haVe tO seTup The CoNditions, eXecute thE aCtIoN aNd vAlidaTE it. Don't
cOnFusE cOmpLexitY With shItty uNrelIaBlE TesTs (timinG-BaSED tesTs)

~~~
PeNagwIn
DEpEnds oN the TYpe Of test. WHat you guyS arE TalkInG aBout are Unit tests,
and aRe Designed to TeSt iNdividUAL methods/Functions. You write a separATe
test fOr eAch onE.

TheRe's other tYpeS of tesTinG, IntegrAtion tEsts sOuNd lIKE what YOU aRe bOtH
complainiNG AboUt. IntEgRatiOn tests Test the interaction BEtwEen components
Of a SystEM, AnD arE ThUS faR mORe cOMPlex and likely to Break as you'Re
DEvEloping (whiCH is A hUge pain).

however IntegRAtion teSts have thEir place - jUsT becAUSe tHe
 the US nuclear arsenal wh ich are
de cades  ol d a nd  agi ng.
~~~
quotemstr Whic h is why the nuclear t est b an is,I MH O, abad ide a .A nuc le ar  de te r re nt
mu stbe cred ible to be  ef fe ctive. If an ad versary co mes  to believetha t, say ,80% of ou r w arhea ds are duds a nd most o ft heirsw ork, th e lo gicof retaliation
ma y  c o me to favor afirstst r ik e . 

~ ~~mmhsieh
Th elogic behindt es t b ans (in conjuncti on with num e ric al cap sonw arhead s) is 
t o  cr eate uncert aint y in thereliab i lity of one's o wn ars ena l t o di s co ur age 
e i the r  s ide fro m contem pl at ing a  fir s t - s trik e.
~~~ 
quot emstr
I'm not  su re a b out  that . Wha t if  y ou're  convi ncedth at _your_ brill iant 
scientis tsha vecr eated workin g w arh eads wh ile you thi nk t h eenemy's dolts
have n' t be en ableto kee p  t he i r arsena lwor king ? Whatif y o ur  enemy t hinkst he 
s ame thi ng  in re ve rse ? I  thin k  the re's a lways atempt a tion to overes t imate
one's o w nc a pa b ilit y a nd underest imat e  the  sop h is tic a tionof ot he r s. 
------
3fe9a03ccd1 4c a5
> _ Two c ompletely dif ferent dev i c e s, eachresp o ns i ble for checki ng th e other,
> deviated  iden ticallyfor vastl y differen t r eas ons ._H ap pens frequent l y . “T he  testsare  broken  bu t I ’mpos it ive the s oftwareis 
c or re ctso I’ m  going t ofix  t hetests ” 

~~~VBpro gram me rT hat 's oner ea s o n Iha te  com ple xi ty in  tes t s.Your te sts havetob e du mb 
e nough t hat you are 9 9%  sure theco deundert e st is at  fault.

~~~
WrtCdEvryd y 
By def ini tion,  tes ts have t o b e more  co m plex t han th e und er lyi n g  code . Th e
t es t have tos e tup  theco ndit ions, e xecute the actiona ndvalidate it.Don 't
c o n fu sec om p lex it y  wi t h  shitty unrelia ble tests(t i mi ng-based t e sts )
~~~
pe nagwinDepen d s on th e type of  test. Wh at  you g uys  are talki ng about  are unit tests , 
a nd ar e d esigne dtotestindivi d ual  meth ods/fu nc tions.  Youwr ite a se parate
test for each on e.

Th ere's  ot her types  of tes ting, int egra tion tests  so und  like  wh a t you  are bo thc ompla inin g  about. I n te gra t i on  tests test t h e i ntera cti o n betw eencomponents
of a s y stem, and arethus f armor e  com pl ex and likelytobr e a k as you 'r e
developin g (which  i s  a hu ge pai n).

H oweveri n te g ration  tes tshave thei r p la c e - jus tbe c ause t he
 the_US nuclear_arsenal which are
decades old_and aging.

~~~
quotemstr
Which_is_why the_nuclear_test ban is,_IMHO, a bad_idea. A nuclear deterrent
must_be credible to_be_effective. If an adversary comes to believe that, say,
80% of our warheads are duds_and_most of_theirs_work,_the logic of retaliation
may come_to favor a first strike.

~~~
mmhsieh
The_logic behind_test bans (in conjunction with numerical caps on_warheads)_is
to create uncertainty_in the reliability of one's own arsenal to discourage
either_side from contemplating a first-strike.

~~~
quotemstr
I'm not_sure about that._What_if_you're convinced that _your__brilliant
scientists have created working warheads while_you think the enemy's dolts
haven't been_able to keep their arsenal working? What_if your enemy thinks the
same thing_in reverse? I think there's_always a_temptation to overestimate
one's own capability_and underestimate the_sophistication of_others.

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
> _Two completely_different devices, each responsible for checking_the other,
> deviated_identically for vastly different reasons._

Happens frequently._“The_tests are broken_but_I’m_positive the_software is
correct so_I’m_going to_fix_the tests”

~~~
VBprogrammer
That's one reason I hate_complexity_in tests. Your tests have to be_dumb
enough that you are_99%_sure the code under_test is at fault.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
By definition,_tests have to be more complex_than the_underlying code._The
test have to setup the conditions, execute the action and validate_it. Don't
confuse complexity with shitty unreliable_tests (timing-based tests)

~~~
penagwin
Depends on_the type_of_test. What you_guys_are talking_about are unit tests,
and are designed to_test individual_methods/functions. You write a separate
test for_each one.

There's other types_of_testing, integration tests sound like what_you are both
complaining about. Integration tests_test the interaction between components
of_a_system,_and are thus far more_complex and likely to break as_you're
developing (which is_a huge pain).

However integration tests have their_place_- just because the