Board Thread:New Features/@comment-24739709-20150518230347/@comment-368004-20150608121254

Dessamator wrote:

The testing of parameters can be automated. You can run 1000 tests easily using  unit testing  . Wikipedia, for example,  has some frameworks for  it  . It also hides away the complexity of the template in a module, which can in turn access 50 other modules for repetitive work. Conditional behaviours in templates always look untidy and tend to repeat themselves.The worst part of it is that it is one hell of a problem to understand them. So much so that the creator may find it difficult to make changes,document or explain how it works to others.

Even these new potBoxes can be easily debugged and tested with no problems.

The short answer is that in the best case scenario most Frankenstein-based templates take much more time to create, debug, run and test, and contain a lot of repeated code for no good reason.

See Lua_templating/Converting_Wikitext_templates. I have no problem understanding my templates, thank you very much, and I'm not sure if the task of checking if three optional parameters render correctly before I commit the template requires learning a new scripting language and several testing frameworks, that will fail it anyway because they work server-side. No offence, but you offer an 88 mm cannon to someone complaining about mosquitos.