4 ms·

Uncle Bob (2017) I stood before a sea of programmers a few days ago. I asked them the question I always ask: “How many of you write unit tests on a regular bas

Uncle Bob (2017) I stood before a sea of programmers a few days ago. I asked them the question I always ask: “How many of you write unit tests on a regular basis?” Not one in twenty raised their hands. Rich Hickey (2011) It passed all the tests. Okay. So now what do you do? Right? I think we're in this world I'd like to call guardrail programming. Right? It's really sad. We're like: I can make change because I have tests. Who does that? Who drives their car around banging against the guardrail saying, "Whoa! I'm glad I've got these guardrails because I'd never make it to the show on time." https://github.com/matthiasn/talk-transcripts/blob/master/Hickey_Rich/SimpleMadeEasy.md https://github.com/matthiasn/talk-transcripts/blob/master/Hi... incremental search "passed all" for the rest

bjpbakker 9y ago
While I'm not a major fan of Clojure, I /loved/ this talk :)
- kaeluka 9y ago
  It's a fantastic talk. One of the best talks on programming that I'm aware of.
agentultra 9y ago
Disclosure: I didn't like the talk. In Uncle Bob's view, which I assume has some popularity, unit-tests are a form of software specification. It's informal as the specification can only test specific examples of behavior based on a determined state and the people responsible for its maintenance are the programmers. And if you're not disciplined enough with how you write these tests you end up in a situation where you're writing the rules for your own success and the specification itself contains errors. I look at specifications as blueprints. If you're planning a sky-scraper or mass transit system you use blueprints. If you're building a shed in your backyard you might just use a quick sketch on a napkin. I think the majority of commercial software is somewhere between napkin and blueprint; building houses to lean on a well-trod analogy. You need something more specific and robust than a sketch on a napkin but not quite as formal as a blueprint for a rail switching system. Regardless unit tests are not a very good specification format. They're only going to show you examples where your software meets your requirements. However we all know that software is complex, hard, and systems are more than the sum of their unit test suites: there are operators involved, conditions and constraints on its operation, failure modes. You need a tool to help you design the system and check your work for you because these systems are getting too complex for you to reason about without solid abstractions. I think Rich Hickey completely missed all of this when he said that in his talk. If we were to modify the analogy to fit the view of testing as described the guardrails would have holes in them. All over the place. You'd only be safe in the cases where the car "bumps" into the correct spots you thought to put a test. However I do agree that unit tests alone cannot be relied upon as the only way to write "correct" software where "correctness" is determined by it's adherance to its specification and that the implementation of it follows state of the art practices. One has to do more than just use unit tests to achieve that.
- bad_user 9y ago
  Building houses is not the right analogy to building software, because the used techniques are known and most new buildings are going to be exactly like the millions of other buildings that came before it, even when speaking of sky-scrapers. There's very little innovation in it. Building a new building is usually akin to copying/downloading software, only more expensive. Art is involved in designing buildings sometimes and there is some innovation for the engineers that want to break records, e.g. in building the world's tallest buildings or in building them faster, but I think those are a minority. I don't think Rich Hickey missed the point at all. If I ever saw an actual software architect, then Rich Hickey is one. I think you missed his point of view, because Rich Hickey is also the guy that helped create Clojure's Spec and is a proponent of property-based testing, which Clojure's Spec now enables. In fact Rich Hickey, in "Simple Made Easy" and other presentations, likes to talk about about the need for upfront design, for carrying about the delivered artifact, for thinking deeply about architecture, for simplification. He's in no way proposing a napkin-driven approach, quite the opposite ;-)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
unclebobmartin 9y ago
Who does that? Who uses guard rails like that? Accountants.

bjpbakker 9y ago

While I'm not a major fan of Clojure, I /loved/ this talk :)

kaeluka 9y ago
It's a fantastic talk. One of the best talks on programming that I'm aware of.

agentultra 9y ago

Disclosure: I didn't like the talk. In Uncle Bob's view, which I assume has some popularity, unit-tests are a form of software specification. It's informal as the specification can only test specific examples of behavior based on a determined state and the people responsible for its maintenance are the programmers. And if you're not disciplined enough with how you write these tests you end up in a situation where you're writing the rules for your own success and the specification itself contains errors. I look at specifications as blueprints. If you're planning a sky-scraper or mass transit system you use blueprints. If you're building a shed in your backyard you might just use a quick sketch on a napkin. I think the majority of commercial software is somewhere between napkin and blueprint; building houses to lean on a well-trod analogy. You need something more specific and robust than a sketch on a napkin but not quite as formal as a blueprint for a rail switching system. Regardless unit tests are not a very good specification format. They're only going to show you examples where your software meets your requirements. However we all know that software is complex, hard, and systems are more than the sum of their unit test suites: there are operators involved, conditions and constraints on its operation, failure modes. You need a tool to help you design the system and check your work for you because these systems are getting too complex for you to reason about without solid abstractions. I think Rich Hickey completely missed all of this when he said that in his talk. If we were to modify the analogy to fit the view of testing as described the guardrails would have holes in them. All over the place. You'd only be safe in the cases where the car "bumps" into the correct spots you thought to put a test. However I do agree that unit tests alone cannot be relied upon as the only way to write "correct" software where "correctness" is determined by it's adherance to its specification and that the implementation of it follows state of the art practices. One has to do more than just use unit tests to achieve that.

bad_user 9y ago
Building houses is not the right analogy to building software, because the used techniques are known and most new buildings are going to be exactly like the millions of other buildings that came before it, even when speaking of sky-scrapers. There's very little innovation in it. Building a new building is usually akin to copying/downloading software, only more expensive. Art is involved in designing buildings sometimes and there is some innovation for the engineers that want to break records, e.g. in building the world's tallest buildings or in building them faster, but I think those are a minority. I don't think Rich Hickey missed the point at all. If I ever saw an actual software architect, then Rich Hickey is one. I think you missed his point of view, because Rich Hickey is also the guy that helped create Clojure's Spec and is a proponent of property-based testing, which Clojure's Spec now enables. In fact Rich Hickey, in "Simple Made Easy" and other presentations, likes to talk about about the need for upfront design, for carrying about the delivered artifact, for thinking deeply about architecture, for simplification. He's in no way proposing a napkin-driven approach, quite the opposite ;-)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

unclebobmartin 9y ago

Who does that? Who uses guard rails like that? Accountants.