I’ve heard managers and teams mandating 100% code coverage for applications. That’s a really bad idea. The problem is that you get diminishing returns on our tests as the coverage increases much beyond 70% (I made that number up… no science there). Why is that? Well, when you strive for 100% all the time, you find yourself spending time testing things that really don’t need to be tested. Things that really have no logic in them at all (so any bugs could be caught by ESLint and Flow). Maintaining tests like this actually really slow you and your team down.
Recent articles
- Trying out llama.cpp's new vision support - 10th May 2025
- Saying "hi" to Microsoft's Phi-4-reasoning - 6th May 2025
- Feed a video to a vision LLM as a sequence of JPEG frames on the CLI (also LLM 0.25) - 5th May 2025