On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 17:15 -0800, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: […] > "Clearly", really? Not even a shred of a doubt there? There is never a time > where test first might be worse than testing after? > > See what I mean when I was talking about dogma?
When starting a project from scratch "test first" can be a real problem, but that doesn't mean you cannot add tests as you go along so that when you are at a "milestone" of development there are reasonable tests, even though development has not been test-driven. For maintenance though there is a stronger case for a more rigid approach to "test first" since you need to exhibit the failure before amending the code under test, and have the proof that your amendment fixed the test. In the end though it's really down to the judgement of the programmer how to proceed so that when others use the code there is good coverage with tests, functional (system, integration) as well as unit. TDD could be relabelled as "tests developed during". -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
