[LRUG] TDD (was: Ruby Contracting)

[Eleanor McHugh]

On 19 Feb 2009, at 13:48, Vahagn Hayrapetyan wrote:
> But what if eliminating ninety percent of those defects can be  
> achieved without a test suite (which in my experience it can) then  
> the role of testing in a 30K codebase is restricted even further to  
> finding just 10 defects. How well that expense can then be justified  
> will vary from project to project, just as the defect count varies  
> based on team experience, but I don't believe it's a priori  
> demonstrable for all projects that a test suite is a desirable  
> investment of developer effort.
>
> Fast-forward 2 years. You're working in another company and making  
> big $$$. An bright but not-so-experienced programmer now has to work  
> with legacy code (yours!), and he just hasn't had enough experience  
> to be able to spot errors just by looking at other peoples' code.
>
> Now, wouldn't it be nice to have a documentation for this code in  
> the form of a robust, explicit, "spelled-out" test suite? (Or worthy  
> of investment?)

Code isn't for computers, it's for people, and if it's not readable by  
people it isn't fit for purpose. Therefore I'd rather a codebase  
written with an engaging and legible style that I can sit down and  
read as hard copy than a mountain of specs and tests. YMMV.

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason