4 ms·

Except that it hasn't been shown to work better. Quoting from http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/4529.html http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/4529.html: "If you

Except that it hasn't been shown to work better. Quoting from http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/4529.html http://third-bit.com/blog/archives/4529.html: "If you ask its advocates for evidence, they’ll tell you why it has to be true; if you press them, you’ll be given anecdotes, and if you press harder, people will be either puzzled or hostile." Oh good, evidence against is just as preachy and unscientific as the evidence for. http://evidencebasedse.com/?q=taxonomy/term/2 http://evidencebasedse.com/?q=taxonomy/term/2 Research suggests that unit testing has a very strong correlation with correct software. Research suggests TDD has no correlation with correct software, except for the fact that TDDers tend to write 2x more tests than non TDDers.

pekk 14y ago
Your requirement of 'evidence against' isn't how science works. The burden of evidence rests with the people making the claim. If you make a claim and do not provide evidence on request, that claim is not supported; it is not necessary to supply 'evidence against' for the claim to be unsupported, and there's no good reason to believe unsupported claims.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- stonemetal 14y ago
  This is a discourse not science class both sides of the argument should have evidence.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Who says there are only two sides? There are dozens or hundreds. I can make a new one - programming is best done with a candle burning on the table and a glass of wine or whisky available. It works for me, so I say it should work for everyone. I call it "Romantic Driven Programming" or "RDP." Now, what's the evidence that you have against RDP as a best practice? You don't have any, do you? So obviously I can now promote it as the new universal methodology. (Or more directly, you think the argument is that there is evidence for and evidence against TDD. My argument is that there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion.) Given that this is a discourse, have you read any of the discussions of the topic of TDD? For example, "Making Software" (e.g Oram and Wilson) has an excellent chapter summarizing the research results. If not, then it's a rather unbalanced discourse, no? You pointed to a list of papers, but didn't describe what you wanted to discuss from them. For example, some of the research compares test-first with test-last. I'm a proponent of test-during, and don't think that test-first and test-last are the only two ways to compare things.

pekk 14y ago

Your requirement of 'evidence against' isn't how science works. The burden of evidence rests with the people making the claim. If you make a claim and do not provide evidence on request, that claim is not supported; it is not necessary to supply 'evidence against' for the claim to be unsupported, and there's no good reason to believe unsupported claims.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stonemetal 14y ago
This is a discourse not science class both sides of the argument should have evidence.
- dalke 14y ago
  Who says there are only two sides? There are dozens or hundreds. I can make a new one - programming is best done with a candle burning on the table and a glass of wine or whisky available. It works for me, so I say it should work for everyone. I call it "Romantic Driven Programming" or "RDP." Now, what's the evidence that you have against RDP as a best practice? You don't have any, do you? So obviously I can now promote it as the new universal methodology. (Or more directly, you think the argument is that there is evidence for and evidence against TDD. My argument is that there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion.) Given that this is a discourse, have you read any of the discussions of the topic of TDD? For example, "Making Software" (e.g Oram and Wilson) has an excellent chapter summarizing the research results. If not, then it's a rather unbalanced discourse, no? You pointed to a list of papers, but didn't describe what you wanted to discuss from them. For example, some of the research compares test-first with test-last. I'm a proponent of test-during, and don't think that test-first and test-last are the only two ways to compare things.