TDD fizzled because not enough emphasis was put on writing high level tests which matched user stories and too much emphasis was put on it as a tool of design.

▲

SkyPuncher 3 days ago | parent [-]

No, TDD failed because it assumed you could design a perfect systems before implementation.

It’s a totally waste of time to do TDD to only find out you made a bad design choice or discovered a conflicting problem.

	▲	stpedgwdgfhgdd a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		“TDD failed because it assumed you could design a perfect systems before implementation” TDD states the opposite. TDD is very hard to do right and takes a lot of discipline. If i hadn’t worked for a company that did 100% XP, i would not have either believed it could be so effective. (Best Enterprise software i’ve ever seen and written) In a way, it is funny. You can practise XP with your AI as pair.
	▲	matijsvzuijlen 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What makes you think TDD assumes that? It sounds like the complete opposite of what TDD is about.
	▲	MoreQARespect 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This is precisely the problem I alluded to which is solved by writing higher level tests with TDD that make fewer assumptions about your design. TDD ought to let you make a bad design decision and then refactoring it while keeping the test as is.
	▲	BoiledCabbage 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Roughly how many test on average would you write before beginning implementation?