a) If you aren't touching that land mine you're missing the point. You can't say that one is free (except maybe it has a cost), and the other has a cost. That's just nonsensical.
b) Second, I'm going to argue that tests are actually free. And I think this because I don't care how good static type proponents think they are, I know they don't wait until it compiles and SHIP SHIP SHIP, they actually run their damned program. The alternative to automated testing is manual testing, not no testing.
> I'm going to argue that tests are actually free.
> The alternative to automated testing is manual testing, not no testing.
Actually, unit tests have different costs than manual testing. That doesn't make them free. For example, with unit tests, you now have more (possibly buggy) code to maintain.
b) Second, I'm going to argue that tests are actually free. And I think this because I don't care how good static type proponents think they are, I know they don't wait until it compiles and SHIP SHIP SHIP, they actually run their damned program. The alternative to automated testing is manual testing, not no testing.