Jacinta Richardson wrote:
Benno wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Make it RUN;
Make it RIGHT;
Make it FAST; and
Make it NICE.
I think the idea that the TDD guys are putting forward is that "Make it NICE" (e.g:
automated test suite), means that you can make it "RIGHT" and "
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 12:16 +1000, Benno wrote:
> I think the idea that the TDD guys are putting forward is that "Make it NICE"
> (e.g:
> automated test suite), means that you can make it "RIGHT" and "FAST" with
> less effort
> than if you didn't have an automated test suite.
I looked at this
Benno wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Make it RUN;
>>Make it RIGHT;
>>Make it FAST; and
>>Make it NICE.
>
> I think the idea that the TDD guys are putting forward is that "Make it NICE"
> (e.g:
> automated test suite), means that you can make it "RIGHT" and "FAST" with
> less effort
> tha
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:35:19PM +1000, Ken Foskey wrote:
> > Don't you think we may be right?
> Absolutely. I have written perl modules with test scripts and without.
> The ones with test scripts have always been faster to develop. This
> sounds absolutely wrong however it is what I have found
On Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 08:49:39 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>With regards to last night's Slug meeting and using automated testing,
>>I think everyone agrees that writing (and using) test cases produces
>>higher quality co
On 29 Apr 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With regards to last night's Slug meeting and using automated testing,
> I think everyone agrees that writing (and using) test cases produces
> higher quality code with less bugs. My point is that higher quality
> output doesn't come for free, it requires
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erik:
> telford:
> > Erik:
> > > It should also be easy to prove by now that either Rob or Peter
> > > has written more code than you, or anyone you can name that swears
> > > off test driven developement. We say that (as long as you ignore
> > > genui
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With regards to last night's Slug meeting and using automated testing,
I think everyone agrees that writing (and using) test cases produces
higher quality code with less bugs. My point is that higher quality
output doesn't c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Erik:
> > It should also be easy to prove by now that either Rob or Peter
> > has written more code than you, or anyone you can name that swears
> > off test driven developement. We say that (as long as you ignore
> > genuine knockoffs with only one user) based on our ex
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 21:40 +1000, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 19:34 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > wikipedia has a nice little article on this too :
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_driven_development.
>
> There is a step missing from this document. We have to remember to
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 19:34 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> wikipedia has a nice little article on this too :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_driven_development.
There is a step missing from this document. We have to remember to test
the test code a little bit.
Write test.
*** Run test, ens
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 15:08 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Don't you think we may be right?
Absolutely. I have written perl modules with test scripts and without.
The ones with test scripts have always been faster to develop. This
sounds absolutely wrong however it is what I have found.
Y
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 16:55 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> My favourite eg: PTC track (rail) transponder readers.
> I watched the 'expert consultant' spend 3500 hours, watched his tries
> and
> fumbles and finally fail the official 'type testing' acceptance.
> In 30 days I wrote the trans
On Saturday 29 April 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With regards to last night's Slug meeting and using automated testing,
> I think everyone agrees that writing (and using) test cases produces
> higher quality code with less bugs. My point is that higher quality
> output doesn't come for f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erik:
> It should also be easy to prove by now that either Rob or Peter
> has written more code than you, or anyone you can name that swears
> off test driven developement. We say that (as long as you ignore
> genuine knockoffs with only one user) base
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> With regards to last night's Slug meeting and using automated testing,
> I think everyone agrees that writing (and using) test cases produces
> higher quality code with less bugs. My point is that higher quality
> out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With regards to last night's Slug meeting and using automated testing,
I think everyone agrees that writing (and using) test cases produces
higher quality code with less bugs. My point is that higher quality
output doesn't come for free, it requires e
17 matches
Mail list logo
