> "Certainly, one approach is to just write good tests that don't have these problems. If you like writing tests and are very good at it, you may continue to do

> "Certainly, one approach is to just write good tests that don't have these problems. If you like writing tests and are very good at it, you may continue to do so. " The article should be renamed to "Against Bad Testing". Good tests do exist ... but they are hard to write (but easy to maintain). They require a lot more software design competence that writing non-testable production-code-that-works-today-and-maybe-tomorrow. An example of good tests: have a look at the Ninja codebase. Writing such good tests for a legacy codebase (not written with testability in mind) is even harder (and I'm not sure that it's always possible in this case. It might. But I don't have any example). Forcing everyone to write tests when they don't have the competence yet is a recipe for disaster and false conclusions ("this testing thing doesn't work / is harmful"). PS: now that I think of it, do we have a list of well-tested public-source codebases? this could be a good pedagogical tool.