without tests doesn't mean bad architecture. I can go the other way and say that code that ends up being 'modified' to be testable, with 43 mocks to just be ab

without tests doesn't mean bad architecture. I can go the other way and say that code that ends up being 'modified' to be testable, with 43 mocks to just be able to setup a class is as much crap as code without tests. I would say I never achieved more than 20% or so of test coverage in my products and production code. It doesn't mean it is a mess of tightly coupled modules in any way. But TDD and any other dogmas in development are like this. Solution A prevents (maybe) a problem, thus if you aren't using it all other code has that problem and defendants will just keep trying to make it so.