[LRUG] TDD (was: Ruby Contracting)

[Romek]

I write code. I write code that needs testing (not tests). Usually it
doesn't need testing as it attempts to be clear and concise which Ruby
is good at (I like code that fits on one sheet of paper).

Why should I write tests that need code? Seems absurd to me. I have
and still don't get this TDD and am glad that I have nothing to do
with it.

To me writing tests for code is like having a chicken and trying to
design an egg that fits. To me this is just constricting the code to
do exactly what the tests require. This is very good for formal
specifications when everything is correct and doesn't change. I prefer
designing the egg to fit the chicken when you can have all the glory
of discovering what strange breeds you can evolve from letting the egg
just hatch.

Romek

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Paul Carey <paul.p.carey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Stephen Bartholomew <steve at curve21.com> wrote:
>>>I often find the challenge in writing such tests
>>>to be greater than the challenge of developing the application itself
>
>> With TDD, the idea is that thinking about the tests and specifying what
>> you're about to code forces you to consider your design.  When a test seems
>> impossible to write for the code you're about to implement, it often means
>> that you need to break the problem down further or split things out.
>
> 'Such' tests referred to tests that are "useful, robust, intelligible,
> non-brittle". I do get that that TDD can help deconstruct a problem.
> But of the four criteria above, I feel that TDD on its own has little
> to offer.
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>