3 ms·

I was commenting on the methodology as I heard and watched it explained by the author (Robert C Martin), as well as the way it was presented in his videos. TDD

by nercury 10y ago

I was commenting on the methodology as I heard and watched it explained by the author (Robert C Martin), as well as the way it was presented in his videos. TDD workflow is fine; it's not thinking about the pink elephant (the source code) idea that bugs me.

lisivka 10y ago
Robert Martin is author of Agile manifesto. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Kent-Beck-refer-to-the-rediscovery-of-test-driven-development https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Kent-Beck-refer-to-the-redisc... The original description of TDD was in an ancient book about programming. It said you take the input tape, manually type in the output tape you expect, then program until the actual output tape matches the expected output.
- westurner 10y ago
  +1. TDD could be considered as a derivation of the Scientific Method (Hypothesis Testing). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis Test first isolates out a null hypothesis (that the test already passed); but not that it passes/fails because of some other chance variation (e.g. hash randomization and unordered maps). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
  - lisivka 10y ago
    +1 Right on the spot. TDD requires you to draw your target first, then hit or miss it with the code, like in science: hypotheses -> confirmation/declining via experiments -> working theory. But in practice, lot of coders are hitting a point instead, then they draw target around that point, like in fake science: we throw coin 100 times, distribution is 60/40, our hypothesis: random coin flip has 60 to 40 ratio, our hypothesis confirmed by experiment, huge savings, hooray!

by nercury 10y ago

lisivka 10y ago

Robert Martin is author of Agile manifesto. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Kent-Beck-refer-to-the-rediscovery-of-test-driven-development https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Kent-Beck-refer-to-the-redisc... The original description of TDD was in an ancient book about programming. It said you take the input tape, manually type in the output tape you expect, then program until the actual output tape matches the expected output.

westurner 10y ago
+1. TDD could be considered as a derivation of the Scientific Method (Hypothesis Testing). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis Test first isolates out a null hypothesis (that the test already passed); but not that it passes/fails because of some other chance variation (e.g. hash randomization and unordered maps). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
- lisivka 10y ago
  +1 Right on the spot. TDD requires you to draw your target first, then hit or miss it with the code, like in science: hypotheses -> confirmation/declining via experiments -> working theory. But in practice, lot of coders are hitting a point instead, then they draw target around that point, like in fake science: we throw coin 100 times, distribution is 60/40, our hypothesis: random coin flip has 60 to 40 ratio, our hypothesis confirmed by experiment, huge savings, hooray!