2 ms·

I think there are contexts where this approach is sufficient. But the little Dijkstra in me can’t stand for it in most professional situations. I’m not the ki

I think there are contexts where this approach is sufficient. But the little Dijkstra in me can’t stand for it in most professional situations. I’m not the kind of programmer that delights in not knowing what I’m doing and fixing the result of my neglect later on. I also charge obscene rates. Usually to fix piles of code no one understands anymore. Tests I find are a bare minimum and are not even sufficient in more cases than people realize. It’s a shame though that even this low bar is too much for some. It’s a good balancing act to know when the enemy of a good plan is a perfect one… and what makes a sufficiently good plan.

tomlockwood 4y ago
> I think there are contexts where this approach is sufficient. Absolutely!
smaudet 4y ago
"Tests I find are a bare minimum and are not even sufficient in more cases than people realize. It’s a shame though that even this low bar is too much for some." That's in part because some really bad hipster devs decided they knew better and nixed integration testing... "Tests" usually means "happy path and/or unit", which nearly always is that ultra low bar. The amount of testing required to truly validate something of reasonable complexity is so staggeringly high, if your tests run in under an hour you probably didn't test it, or you are building something really, really simple. True testing is about covering the combinatorial explosion, and that's assuming your problem space is decidable.