>I’ve read this article twice now and it feels like confused word soup Yeah, that'll happen with a lot of the testing "literature" from the 2005ish to 2015ish

>I’ve read this article twice now and it feels like confused word soup Yeah, that'll happen with a lot of the testing "literature" from the 2005ish to 2015ish era. It was a popular topic at the time, and one I was searching for answers on too. But I was working at a company that was ahead of the curve on testing and I got so frustrated at publicly available resources on testing. During that time and still to this day, when I read about testing online I kinda feel like I'm drunk. I have an idea of what's going on, things sorta make sense but not really. I'm only understanding bits and pieces. There are unnecessary and over-complicated details on some things, suspiciously light on meaty topics. There was so much drivel written about testing back then that I still get angry remembering that people would say with a straight face "you don't need documentation, tests are your documentation."