I like Beck's vision for the future, and I agree that we should keep experimenting in order to learn which tests tend to work and why. But we don't need to do

I like Beck's vision for the future, and I agree that we should keep experimenting in order to learn which tests tend to work and why. But we don't need to do it all manually -- we can use computers to automate and speed up such experiments. To that end, I've started a project to automatically generate unit tests from C++ source: https://github.com/dekimir/RamFuzz https://github.com/dekimir/RamFuzz Right now the generated tests are pretty superficial and silly, but the key is that they are randomized. Because of this, we can run millions of variations, some of which will prove to be good tests. Right now I'm hacking an AI that will pick those good instances from many random test runs. If it works, we'll be able to simply take source code and produce (after burning enough CPU cycles) good unit tests for it. This will be a huge help in letting the human programmer only do "enough" test writing -- the AI will take care of the rest. Additionally, the solution can be unleashed on cruft code that no-one dares touch because of a lack of tests and understanding. (Yes, there will be a business built around this, but that's for next year. :)