3 ms·

Your article confuses the two constantly. You can't use TDD without using unit tests, TDD is a way of using unit tests. You can use unit tests without TDD. M

Your article confuses the two constantly. You can't use TDD without using unit tests, TDD is a way of using unit tests. You can use unit tests without TDD. Most of what you talked about had nothing to do with TDD and was just about unit tests.

pauloortins 13y ago
I wrote about using unit tests with TDD. You can use unit tests without TDD. Of course, some of the TDD benefits are also achievable when we use only unit tests.
- papsosouid 13y ago
  TDD has no benefits, that is why the confusion is such an issue. People keep pretending the benefits of testing are benefits of TDD, when TDD is entirely unnecessary.
  - davidcuddeback 13y ago
    Can you cite the research on that? I've read much of the research on TDD, and the results are inconclusive largely because they're inconsistent. At best, there is some weak evidence of some actual benefits but at some small cost. The two major problems that I see with the research in TDD are (1) there's little confidence that TDD was applied correctly in many of the studies, and (2) the studies have too low of statistical power to make conclusions. I think you're relying on a misunderstanding of TDD to make your conclusion. You say that "people keep pretending the benefits of testing are benefits of TDD." While it's true that many practitioners confuse the two, that is not the purported benefits of TDD. It's not fair to draw a conclusion based on that premise.
    - papsosouid 13y ago
      If you've read it, why do I need to re-show it to you? There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit. There is evidence that testing provides benefits. TDD salesmen offer studies showing the benefits of testing as proof that TDD works: http://haacked.com/archive/2008/01/22/research-supports-the-effectiveness-of-tdd.aspx http://haacked.com/archive/2008/01/22/research-supports-the-...
      - davidcuddeback 13y ago
        > There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit. You originally said, "TDD has no benefits," which is a definitive claim and not supported by evidence. That's vastly different from saying, "There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit." You seem to be conflating being unable to draw a conclusion with drawing a negative conclusion. They're not the same thing. > If you've read it, why do I need to re-show it to you? Because the research I've read doesn't support your conclusion that "TDD has no benefits." I'd like to know if there's a body of research out there that I haven't read yet. You seem to have an axe to grind with TDD salesmen. That's fair enough. Salesmen aren't in the business of advancing knowledge. They're in the business of persuasion. If you want to criticize salesmen for not being scientifically honest, be my guest. Sometimes, this tactic causes harm. For example, if a salesmen persuades someone to buy homoeopathic remedies instead of traditional medicine, people could die. I think it's good that you're skeptical of the salesmen, because they're business doesn't require them to be scientifically honest. But that shouldn't inform your opinion of TDD (or any other subject), because there are others in the world whose business does require them to be scientifically honest. And they're the ones whose words you should read to form your opinion. And that is why I asked for sources.
        papsosouid 13y ago
        >You originally said, "TDD has no benefits," which is a definitive claim and not supported by evidence No, you don't have to prove a negative. If it has not been proven, then it does not exist. Until TDD has proven benefits, it is correct to state that it does not have benefits. Just as until unicorns are proven to exist, it is correct to state that unicorns do not exist. >Because the research I've read doesn't support your conclusion that "TDD has no benefits." Yes it does, you just want to pretend that proof needs to work in reverse. It doesn't. >But that shouldn't inform your opinion of TDD (or any other subject), because there are others in the world whose business does require them to be scientifically honest. And they're the ones whose words you should read to form your opinion My opinion is based on the evidence, that's the point.
        davidcuddeback 13y ago

pauloortins 13y ago

I wrote about using unit tests with TDD. You can use unit tests without TDD. Of course, some of the TDD benefits are also achievable when we use only unit tests.

papsosouid 13y ago
TDD has no benefits, that is why the confusion is such an issue. People keep pretending the benefits of testing are benefits of TDD, when TDD is entirely unnecessary.
- davidcuddeback 13y ago
  Can you cite the research on that? I've read much of the research on TDD, and the results are inconclusive largely because they're inconsistent. At best, there is some weak evidence of some actual benefits but at some small cost. The two major problems that I see with the research in TDD are (1) there's little confidence that TDD was applied correctly in many of the studies, and (2) the studies have too low of statistical power to make conclusions. I think you're relying on a misunderstanding of TDD to make your conclusion. You say that "people keep pretending the benefits of testing are benefits of TDD." While it's true that many practitioners confuse the two, that is not the purported benefits of TDD. It's not fair to draw a conclusion based on that premise.
  - papsosouid 13y ago
    If you've read it, why do I need to re-show it to you? There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit. There is evidence that testing provides benefits. TDD salesmen offer studies showing the benefits of testing as proof that TDD works: http://haacked.com/archive/2008/01/22/research-supports-the-effectiveness-of-tdd.aspx http://haacked.com/archive/2008/01/22/research-supports-the-...
    - davidcuddeback 13y ago
      > There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit. You originally said, "TDD has no benefits," which is a definitive claim and not supported by evidence. That's vastly different from saying, "There is no evidence that TDD provides any benefit." You seem to be conflating being unable to draw a conclusion with drawing a negative conclusion. They're not the same thing. > If you've read it, why do I need to re-show it to you? Because the research I've read doesn't support your conclusion that "TDD has no benefits." I'd like to know if there's a body of research out there that I haven't read yet. You seem to have an axe to grind with TDD salesmen. That's fair enough. Salesmen aren't in the business of advancing knowledge. They're in the business of persuasion. If you want to criticize salesmen for not being scientifically honest, be my guest. Sometimes, this tactic causes harm. For example, if a salesmen persuades someone to buy homoeopathic remedies instead of traditional medicine, people could die. I think it's good that you're skeptical of the salesmen, because they're business doesn't require them to be scientifically honest. But that shouldn't inform your opinion of TDD (or any other subject), because there are others in the world whose business does require them to be scientifically honest. And they're the ones whose words you should read to form your opinion. And that is why I asked for sources.
      - papsosouid 13y ago
        >You originally said, "TDD has no benefits," which is a definitive claim and not supported by evidence No, you don't have to prove a negative. If it has not been proven, then it does not exist. Until TDD has proven benefits, it is correct to state that it does not have benefits. Just as until unicorns are proven to exist, it is correct to state that unicorns do not exist. >Because the research I've read doesn't support your conclusion that "TDD has no benefits." Yes it does, you just want to pretend that proof needs to work in reverse. It doesn't. >But that shouldn't inform your opinion of TDD (or any other subject), because there are others in the world whose business does require them to be scientifically honest. And they're the ones whose words you should read to form your opinion My opinion is based on the evidence, that's the point.
        davidcuddeback 13y ago