> Are you sure that writing tests makes science better? Or are you just assuming that? It is perfectly acceptable to write code without tests. Proof-of-Concept

> Are you sure that writing tests makes science better? Or are you just assuming that? It is perfectly acceptable to write code without tests. Proof-of-Concept or Minimum Viable Product are a great place to write code without tests. It is less acceptable if other people will run or use that code. It is even less acceptable if anyone (including oneself) ever updates or extends the code. --- You could take this analogy to scientific instruments. Imagine you make a novel particle detector. You get a scientific result with your detector. A colleague uses your detector, but they don't clean it properly before use, and they use a power supply with lower voltage. They don't detect any particles! Was your science bad? Would the "science be better" if there were clearer instructions and pre-requisites? Now imagine another scientist makes a copy of your detector from the description in your paper. They get some stuff wrong because your description was ambiguous. Was the science bad? --- By the way, all of these things are real problems with scientific investigations, and not just in the software realm.