<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for objo</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/objo/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/objo/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:50:26 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Knowing.NET - 30K application lines + 110K testing lines: Evidence of...?</title><link>http://www.knowing.net/PermaLink,guid,1e1d2066-8a6f-4eb9-aff8-4298736712bc.aspx#comment-333441</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well put.  Coming from the Ruby camp we see this quite often.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stuart Halloway (&lt;a href="http://thinkrelevance.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="thinkrelevance.com"&gt;thinkrelevance.com&lt;/a&gt;) has a statement that in 10 years we are going to view the compiler as an incredibly weak form of unit testing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the thoughts,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;-Joe O'Brien&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://twitter.com/objo" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="twitter.com/objo"&gt;twitter.com/objo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://objo.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="objo.com"&gt;objo.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">objo</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:50:26 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>