> It's not that the environment is custom, is that it's real. Do you call your payment service or your mail sending service from your tests? This is exactly the kind of thing you want to experiment with in a supervised, non-repeatable way.
The irony you mentioning that is I have actually written "tests" that call braintree and stripe...
Just to clarify when I say "test" I don't mean some precise definition of "unit test" or "integration test". I mean in a runner that runs your code. Unit tests basically allow you to make a whole bunch of entry points (aka static main(args)).
I have many times setup a particularly environment and then repeatedly ran a unit test against that environment (I then commented or deleted that code later).
I think in large part of what your saying is good about REPLs is that they allow hot code swapping but that is only IMO really one part of the REPL. The key to really good REPL should be human input (think Excel) and human output (think images and graphs). There was a company recently shown on HN called Luna [1] and I think that is what a REPL should be.
And I particularly pick on this because you mention Bret Victor who is (err I guess was) actually working on environments like this.
Otherwise call it a unit test... call it a REPL... call it hot code swapping but in current JVM environments the difference can be pretty nebulous.
> I think in large part of what your saying is good about REPLs is that they allow hot code swapping but that is only IMO really one part of the REPL. The key to really good REPL should be human input (think Excel) and human output (think images and graphs).
I definitely could have spent more time on this part in the article. You may want to have a look at Proto-REPL (https://atom.io/packages/proto-repl), which is one of Clojure's REPLs (for the Atom editor)
The irony you mentioning that is I have actually written "tests" that call braintree and stripe...
Just to clarify when I say "test" I don't mean some precise definition of "unit test" or "integration test". I mean in a runner that runs your code. Unit tests basically allow you to make a whole bunch of entry points (aka static main(args)).
I have many times setup a particularly environment and then repeatedly ran a unit test against that environment (I then commented or deleted that code later).
I think in large part of what your saying is good about REPLs is that they allow hot code swapping but that is only IMO really one part of the REPL. The key to really good REPL should be human input (think Excel) and human output (think images and graphs). There was a company recently shown on HN called Luna [1] and I think that is what a REPL should be.
And I particularly pick on this because you mention Bret Victor who is (err I guess was) actually working on environments like this.
Otherwise call it a unit test... call it a REPL... call it hot code swapping but in current JVM environments the difference can be pretty nebulous.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14612680