3 ms·

It's not about TDD vs no tests. The article is about tests first or tests later.

• danjoc 10y ago
  And yet, that is not what the clickbait title implies.
  • zzalpha 10y ago
    Only if you think unit testing necessarily requires TDD (which is defined as writing tests before writing the code that passes those tests). It doesn't. All the article says is TDD has little or not impact... it does not say unit testing as a practice has no impact. Seems to be a common misunderstanding around here that you, too, have fallen victim to...
    • danjoc 10y ago
      >Seems to be a common misunderstanding around here that you, too, have fallen victim to... I work with people who openly believe that unit testing is a waste of time. Personally, I think they are afraid, because they don't even know how, and don't care to learn. They would see that title, and that's all the confirmation bias they would need. Thanks for assuming the worst about me though.
      • zzalpha 10y ago
        Err, my apologies if that came across as a slight, I literally meant you and a lot of other folks made the exact same mistake. No judgement intended, it's clearly a common misapprehension. My guess is that a lot of folks got introduced to unit testing through test-driven development and, as a result, conflate the two, assuming the former necessarily implies the latter. Speaking for myself, I was writing UTs long before the TDD fad landed and so I never picked up the habit. It's just not the way my developer mind works, and I've not found it compelling enough to try and re-train myself. That said, not believing in the value of automated regression test (of which UTs are the lowest hanging fruit) is utter madness...
      • Rapzid 10y ago
        Unit testing is not always a waste of time. Unit testing can be a waste of time.
  • erik 10y ago
    That is a good point. The implication got me to click through to the article.