Skip to content

docs: why hegel - add CTA links #68

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
ink7047 wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+2 −2
Open

docs: why hegel - add CTA links #68

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/content/docs/explanation/why-hegel.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,10 +27,10 @@ Conversely, it's also never been easier to get started with property-based testi

All of this is, of course, an argument that you should be using *property-based testing*, rather than Hegel in particular. Why should you use Hegel in particular?

Well, if you've already got great property-based tests that you're happy with, you probably shouldn't. Hegel is still early days and while we *want* it to be the best property-based testing library in every language, and are confident that we'll get it there, we can't deny that it's got some rough edges. That being said, if you want to check it out anyway, I bet Claude will one-shot porting over your existing tests to it, and you can decide for yourself which you prefer (and if it's the existing ones, we would *really* appreciate your telling us why so we can fix it!).
Well, if you've already got great property-based tests that you're happy with, you probably shouldn't. Hegel is still early days and while we *want* it to be the best property-based testing library in every language, and are confident that we'll get it there, we can't deny that it's got some rough edges. That being said, if you want to check it out anyway, I bet Claude will one-shot porting over your existing tests to it, and you can decide for yourself which you prefer (and if it's the existing ones, we would *really* appreciate your [telling us why](https://github.com/hegeldev/website/issues/new) so we can fix it!).

If, on the other hand, you'd like to get started on some green field property-based testing, we think Hegel is a great place to do it. It inherits a lot of power from its Hypothesis core, and we've made it as easy to use as possible.

Right now, Hegel is more or less a "developer preview". We expect the underlying logic to be pretty rock solid, because Hypothesis is pretty rock solid. But there are definitely going to be some rough edges in how we interact with it. We're pretty happy with the API but expect we've not got it 100% right.

We still think it's worth your time to give it a try. If this is your first time using property-based testing on a project, you'll almost certainly find bugs if you use it - hopefully *mostly* in your code - and that's useful even if you ultimately don't decide to adopt it until it's more stable. If you do, let us know how it goes!
We still think it's worth your time to give it a try. If this is your first time using property-based testing on a project, you'll almost certainly find bugs if you use it - hopefully *mostly* in your code - and that's useful even if you ultimately don't decide to adopt it until it's more stable. If you do, let us know how it goes!<!-- Link to an email address or the issues page -->