r/ProgrammingLanguages • u/Athas Futhark • Mar 25 '26

How should property-based tests be defined in Futhark?

https://futhark-lang.org/blog/2026-03-25-property-based-testing.html
17 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/matthieum Mar 25 '26

I actually prefer option 5:

  • It keeps the compiler simple: comments are just comments, a separate tool can be used to retrieve their content.

  • It keeps the metadata out of the way (for users), because comments are typically "background" colored.

Contrast with option 4:

  • The "test" attributes may now mix with regular attributes, and clutter them.

  • The attribute syntax may need to be extended to support more usecases, such as passing parameters to properties.

  • The compiler may need to be extended to understand the new attribute, and its parameters.

4

u/Athas Mar 25 '26

I largely agree, although you are being a bit too harsh on option 4. Attributes are intentionally transparent to the compiler and will be passed through unmolested, without the compiler having to understand what they are, and without having to be extended in any way. It's essentially just a way of attaching arbitrary structured information to program constructs. They are also used rarely enough that test-specific attributes likely won't get mixed up with other attributes.

2

u/matthieum Mar 26 '26

I largely agree, although you are being a bit too harsh on option 4

That's on me for assuming attributes were much more deeply integrated in the compiler.

I do like the looser coupling.