Theorem: if you have tests for all the features of your program (e.g. implementing a spec) you don't need to measure code coverage. Agree?
Related Posts
I'm experimenting with live-evaluating tests in my programming language project.
It's relatively fiddly to hook up a UI for this, but it saves a precious keystroke to run the tests! I'm hoping that it results in more, better tests due to the convenience.
I'm implementing an interpreter, and wondering how often I should check for interruptions (e.g. Ctrl-C).
I don't want to spend too much CPU time checking whether I've been interrupted, but I also want slow programs to stop promptly. It's tricky.
Over a sufficiently long time horizon, all code you write is legacy code.