| ▲ | SkyPuncher 3 days ago | |
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? | ||