Interesting. Reminds me of my time at university using something called Progol. You gave it positive and negative cases and it's algorithm would (very slowly) try and come up with Prolog code that fit it.
It was an interesting idea but in reality we spent so much time having to spoon-feed it more and more carefully constructed examples that it just seemed pointless.
Not to say that this will suffer from the same issue, but I do wonder if the benefit will really be significant enough to make it worth it.
I'm writing a Rails API app (for a customer) that is a client to Alexa's Skill Management API and is a server for a backend app. I have tests but I'm afraid that without a 100% coverage of all corner cases I'll be disappointed by some results and it could be difficult to manually fix the code generated by the program. Am I overly pessimistic?
> Given a method specification in the form of tests, type and effect annotations with RDL, this synthesizes a Ruby function that will pass the tests. This reduces programmer effort to just writing tests that specify the function behavior and the computer writing the function implementation for you.
That's really neat! But doesn't this just mean that instead of writing your code and logic in Ruby you're writing it in RDL?
Also, it would be great to see some examples in the README or in an examples folder. It's kind of hard for me to tell exactly what I need to write and what to call to generate the Ruby.