4 ms·
Agreed, it increases linearly. But now think about the cost of change without tests. The longer you wait to introduce the change the more you will have to chang
by eza 7y ago
Agreed, it increases linearly. But now think about the cost of change without tests. The longer you wait to introduce the change the more you will have to change (increases exponentially). If this code was fully tested and maybe refactored (isolated) when the need arises, the cost of change would almost go to 0 because you would only have to implement a new feature without touching the old code.
- okl 7y agoYou assume that changing a software that has tests is free, which is wrong. Your previous-to-last sentence applies equally to a software project with or without tests.
- okl 7y ago> If this code was fully tested and maybe refactored (isolated) when the need arises, the cost of change would almost go to 0 because you would only have to implement a new feature without touching the old code. You don't even know the "change", you just assume that it will be a change that takes zero effort to implement, to satisfy your argument.
- BigJono 7y agoI don't really get what testing has to do with whether or not a piece of code is isolated or not? For example if you're making a change to a 4 line function with a clearly defined interface, the change is probably going to be trivial, regardless of whether the interface is defined by a set of unit tests or a short comment above the function declaration