2 ms·

I think you should go back and read that comment on the blog, because all statements are qualified e.g: "conservatively concluded", "moderate evidence". You on

by blub 11y ago

I think you should go back and read that comment on the blog, because all statements are qualified e.g: "conservatively concluded", "moderate evidence". You on the other hand seem to be certain that it works. So certain that you're using no qualifiers, writing lengthy replies and selectively providing links that support your assertions. When pressed for information you provide a reasonable defense of unit-testing not TDD. Yes, I know unit-tests are nice when part of a testing strategy together with integration testing, UI testing, etc. I am not at all convinced that TDD is better and you haven't changed that. I am ignoring personal opinions and blog posts because too many software engineering practices are just popular rituals. TDD proponents need to prove conclusively that TDD is significantly better than selective test-after to offset the productivity loss, and they haven't done that.

pmarreck 11y ago
"Moderate evidence" is still evidence. TDD forces your code to be tightly focused. It's very hard to write a test for reams of functionality before you write that functionality, so your code is automatically tight (and as a result, easier to refactor, maintain, understand, etc). I don't see how this is so hard to see or why you need empirical evidence for that part at least. A lot of what "value" is is quite subjective, even in programming. You know "good code" when you see it. Why don't you try TDD and form your own opinion?
- blub 11y ago
  Yes, I will have to try it at some point. I've been postponing that due to lack of time and skepticism.