Well, it's kind of cool that cf-talk is having the TDD argument. Don't really mind how it turns out. Makes me feel good about being a CF programmer.
@Bill, Thanks for the links. The thing that intrigues me about a lot of the TDD debate, including these articles you point to, is that most of the anti-TDD side of the argument ends up espousing pretty much all of the principles of TDD in the very act of trying to refute it. So a lot of the debate is actually about people reacting to what they see as extremism and overly prescriptive statements. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with strongly stating a principle - everyone knows that principles get modified in application - but it's true that some people get way too personal about it. The rest of the debate is along the lines of "I blindly followed the letter of the TDD law while ignoring the principles and it didn't work for me - therefore TDD is flawed." The poster then lays out how they manage to apply all the principles of TDD in some other way that is superficially different from "cookbook" TDD. So leaving those two smokescreens aside, I have yet to see anyone even attempt to seriously contradict the principles of TDD - but I'm still looking! Jaime > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Shelton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2008 1:59 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: TDD vs. Big Ball of Mud (was Re: fusebox vs model glue) > > I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether or not TDD is good, > bad, or should be done lest you are just stupid and ugly. Anytime, or > anyway, you think hard about the software you deliver, it's is going to be > better than if you just bang it out with one eye open and hope no one sees > it's shortcomings. TDD kind of forces you to open both eyes. TDD seems to > work for some and others it does not - why is that? > > This one has been floating around this year, and with good cause: "The > Flawed Theory Behind Unit Testing" - > http://michaelfeathers.typepad.com/michael_feathers_blog/2008/06/the- > flawed-theo.html > > > Here's some other really interesting debates on TDD: > > Cedric Beust wrote the TestNG framework, with others, and though a total > hard-core tester, openly criticizes TDD: > http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000477.html > > "Uncle" Bob Martin has some good responses to Cedric as well as some other > good points: http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob > > > I hope I have few illusions about the quality of my software. Today, I > truly believe my delivered software is only as good as the tests that have > executed it. In other words, the number of defects is directly > proportionals to how thoroughly it's been tested - either manually or > through automation. > > best, > bill > > > > > >> It's actually switching over, to where the tests come first, that's > >> the hard part, for me. Due to a lot of the reasons listed in that > >> article about big balls of mud. :] > > > >I'm not entirely convinced that writing the test before writing the code > >is the best strategy... or at least that it's the best strategy for > >everyone. Development work by its nature means doing things that (we > >hope anyway) haven't been done before. And while you may have some ideas > >about how to accomplish those things ahead of time, the human brain is > >really just not equipped to map out large numbers of variables > >accurately in advance. > > > > snip ... > > >-- > >s. isaac dealey ^ new epoch > > isn't it time for a change? > > ph: 781.769.0723 > > > >http://onTap.riaforge.org/blog > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:312012 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
