To me it seems that author's quarrel is not with the unit testing per se, but with the idea of the 100% unit test coverage. And I agree with that, coverage is a

To me it seems that author's quarrel is not with the unit testing per se, but with the idea of the 100% unit test coverage. And I agree with that, coverage is as useless metric as the number of lines of code, its sole purpose is to make managers happy. Tests themselves are not overrated, just like with everything else in engineering one has to use some common sense when choosing what to test, and what not, it's as simple as that - but because this can't be easily bottled and prescribed as a rule of thumb, managers/leads prefer to cover their asses by insisting on 100% coverage...