The title's a bit sensational. Yes, bad tests are bad. But nobody's entirely against testing in every situation. Imagine that you're Microsoft, except you're a

The title's a bit sensational. Yes, bad tests are bad. But nobody's entirely against testing in every situation. Imagine that you're Microsoft, except you're against testing. You decide to refactor some Windows XP source a bit. What now? Just compile it and ship the result without even trying to boot it once? Clearly that's unacceptable, so at least some testing must be okay in at least some scenarios. The question is how much and when. One or two black box tests of your program can get you a long way. Add more as needed to gain whatever degree of confidence is necessary. Remove tests that are redundant, fragile, or just exist reflexively because "code needs tests."