undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbad_user11y ago0 comments

> Tests are basically same as free climbers safety lines.

I never claimed that they aren't useful.

> once they save your tush, you'll be glad they were there

Of course, I'm glad when I work on well tested codebases. But I was speaking about the advertisement that it received. And people really do think that because that's what TDD enthusiasts claimed - and note that I'm making a difference between testing and TDD.

Particularly funny is this story on Sudoku solvers: http://ravimohan.blogspot.ro/2007/04/learning-from-sudoku-so...

The introduction is genius and I quote: "Ron Jeffries attempts to create a sudoku solver - here, here, here, here and here. (You really ought to read these articles. They are ummm...{cough} ...err.... enlightening.) ... Peter Norvig creates a Sudoku Solver."

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

Ygg211y ago

I don't honestly know what people claim TDD does. But where the requirements are clearly specified (albeit changing) and problem space isn't well understood it has its uses.

The example given is one TDD is kinda one of worst case scenarios for it. If for example the goal was to write a novel game that is popular with some audience Norvigs analytical approach would falter. TDD wouldn't fare much better but I believe it would be better than purely analytical problem. I however have little doubts Norvig would adapt to the challenge.

Do note that by TDD I consider only red-green-refactor methodology on clearly specified parts and adding tests on encountered bugs. Rest I consider fluff.

Summary: Tests and test first design is a tool. It can't be used for everything.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse