3 ms·

Only 40% does Test Driven Development (TDD)? It means that 60% of the developers don’t know if their code works or not! First of all, 40% is way too high. Wond

by mhd 16y ago

Only 40% does Test Driven Development (TDD)? It means that 60% of the developers don’t know if their code works or not! First of all, 40% is way too high. Wonder what kinds of conferences they attend… Also, even if you buy in totally to the agile premises, knowing whether your code works should be an effect of code coverage by unit tests, whether they're up-front or not isn't an issue at all. And finally: No, we're not "professional". This is Hacker News.

jgalvez 16y ago
Most successful, foundational Unix software is developed on a mailing-list, with a changelog.txt file in the HEAD. Just saying.
- mhd 16y ago
  I don't quite get the connection to TDD/Agile, but most current Unix projects actually have two files, one ChangeLog (most of them without the DOSism ".txt"), one NEWS. One for the commits, one for user-readable updates since the last release. Always found that preferable to a mixed document, where you have to filter out the major changes (or weren't able to see individual bug fixes)
  - jgalvez 16y ago
    The point I was trying to make is that big projects can evolve and be managed in a very simple manner, which is the case for many pieces of Unix software. The details regarding changelog nomenclature vary, and of course there may be additional plain text files which are still simply kept in the HEAD.
    - mhd 16y ago
      True. Although, to play devil's advocate, just because you can do projects in other ways doesn't mean that you couldn't do them better in Agile. (Don't get me wrong, I think that Unix projects have a better track record than Agile projects) Personally I think the biggest benefit of "Agile" is that it's established enough to sell it to customers if you're a consultant. As no two Agile processes/teams look the same (hence the name), you've got a lot of freedom. If you came to a big company without that name brand recognition of "XP", you'd probably be forced to do it with ITIL, the Unified Process or other Godzilla-like monstrosities. Having been there, I feel their pain.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by mhd 16y ago

jgalvez 16y ago

Most successful, foundational Unix software is developed on a mailing-list, with a changelog.txt file in the HEAD. Just saying.

mhd 16y ago
I don't quite get the connection to TDD/Agile, but most current Unix projects actually have two files, one ChangeLog (most of them without the DOSism ".txt"), one NEWS. One for the commits, one for user-readable updates since the last release. Always found that preferable to a mixed document, where you have to filter out the major changes (or weren't able to see individual bug fixes)
- jgalvez 16y ago
  The point I was trying to make is that big projects can evolve and be managed in a very simple manner, which is the case for many pieces of Unix software. The details regarding changelog nomenclature vary, and of course there may be additional plain text files which are still simply kept in the HEAD.
  - mhd 16y ago
    True. Although, to play devil's advocate, just because you can do projects in other ways doesn't mean that you couldn't do them better in Agile. (Don't get me wrong, I think that Unix projects have a better track record than Agile projects) Personally I think the biggest benefit of "Agile" is that it's established enough to sell it to customers if you're a consultant. As no two Agile processes/teams look the same (hence the name), you've got a lot of freedom. If you came to a big company without that name brand recognition of "XP", you'd probably be forced to do it with ITIL, the Unified Process or other Godzilla-like monstrosities. Having been there, I feel their pain.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]