I have to say it again, I love this article. Thank you, Gail, for writing it.
The only bad part about it is that the people that really need to read it probably won't.
The other bad part is when people write bad tests that look like good scientific tests but actually aren't. For example, a lot of the testing of (particularly) the XML method of splitting strings fall into that category, for example. Their faulty "grooved" test data causes an extreme bias in the test results but convincing of them of their error (even with code that proves their test data is faulty) is frequently met with them shutting down comments on the post or simply not posting the comments of others on "moderated" sites. It's the problem that Gail cited in the article that boils down to a "one and done" test and an extreme problem with ego. It's kind of like having a hypothesis of "Why did the chicken cross the road" and then coming to the conclusion that all chickens cross the road.
is pronounced "ree-bar
" and is a "Modenism
" for R
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column.
"If you think its expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."--Red Adair
"Change is inevitable... change for the better is not."
When you put the right degree of spin on it, the number 3|8
is also a glyph that describes the nature of a DBAs job. 😉
How to post code problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)