Pinderkent

When unit testing is used in conjunction with a dynamic programming language, it's typical to see many unit tests whose sole purpose is to test for errors that a language employing static typing would have caught at compile time. Justin Etheredge recently discussed this, and it's something that I have written about in the past in my "Unit testing is not a substitute for static typing" article.

This isn't necessarily an argument about whether statically-typed or dynamically-typed languages are better. There is no single answer to that argument, as what's best really depends very much on the situation at hand. When we want to write software really quickly and are willing to accept a low degree of quality, then dynamic languages are quite suitable. A good example of this is a system administrator writing a short Perl script to scan through certain log files, for instance. Chances are a reasonably competent administrator will be able to write such a script with no significant errors. But once we start moving beyond that scale, we need the help of a compiler, and often static typing.

While proponents of dynamic languages are often quick to point out that such languages allow for more rapid development, they often neglect to see the greater picture. Initially writing code is a very small portion of the lifetime of a typical software product. This is especially true as the software systems get larger and more complex. Significantly more time is often spent testing the software initially, testing for regressions as changes are made to other parts of the system, and debugging user-discovered problems after it has been deployed.

Automated unit tests have become a popular way of reducing this post-initial-development burden. While using a statically-typed (and often, but not always, compiled) language, such tests are usually about testing the actual functionality of the software. More trivial checks, such as whether we're assigning textual strings to variables we expect to be purely numeric, are left to the compiler to perform. And this makes perfect sense; developers shouldn't be wasting their time writing unit tests to essentially perform checks that a compiler could do far more thoroughly and efficiently.

There have been numerous times now when I've had to work with larger software systems developed using languages like Ruby or Python. Thankfully, there have been extensive unit test suites available in the majority of those cases. But the value of those test suites is diminished by the numerous tests that would be rendered immediately unnecessary by strong, static typing. Whatever time the developers might have saved by using the dynamic languages ended up being used instead to write trivial unit tests.

This isn't to suggest that we shouldn't use dynamic languages. Like I mentioned earlier, they're often practical and suitable for very small scripts and applications. But when we're writing serious software that's expected to perform reliably, it's in everyone's best interest to use a more static language. That way the developers don't have to waste their time writing unit tests that essentially test for typos and minor programming mistakes, rather than testing the functionality of the software. Likewise, the testers don't have to file numerous bug reports about the inevitable mistakes that the programmers made, but which were missed by their unit tests. And most importantly, the end-users don't have to fall victim to typing errors that both the developers and the testers missed. In short, it just makes more sense to use static languages.