Pretty much all your answers show that you never worked in a big enough project and that you don't understand unit tests. When working in a codebase with adequa

Pretty much all your answers show that you never worked in a big enough project and that you don't understand unit tests. When working in a codebase with adequate test coverage your bugs are more likely to be caught. Please, don't tell me that you don't need tests because you don't introduce bugs. I heard this argument multiple times in the last 10 years, and it was always proved untrue. The point number 2 simply proves that you don't know what a proper unit test looks like if you say that a unit test obfuscates the documentation. The point number 3 just confirms what I thought, that you believe that you don't need tests because you don't introduce bugs. The most interesting part is that you think that other people that write unit tests are lazy. Very interesting position, I would say that whoever tries to refactor a big chunk of legacy code without adding an appropriate coverage is certainly lazy and worse overconfident and probably never did anything similar in the past. The point number 5 proves that you never, ever, worked in a big project if you think that it's enough to look at the logs to find a bug. It's common knowledge nowadays that earlier a bug is caught the less effort it takes to fix it. Finally I think that should be clear that the very bad and toxic approach to programming is not the one that involves writing unit tests. This approach tries to formalise the requirements in a set of scenarios, describing each condition that must be satisfied for a given event/input. Your approach seems focused on just writing code, without a proper design phase, without understanding completely the requirements with a close feedback cycle with the users and with a complete disregard of existing functionality that you think you can write better because you are a better programmer given that you don't need unit tests. In my opinion not writing tests is laziness.