Latest Articles:
- Debugging cucumber scripts, cucumber and devise authentication
- Comment left on review for Feeble Paradox
- Heroic Failure on the 13th of November
- Ok, I'm not perfect and I still get angry - but still try to deal with it
- Tumbleweed Interview Candidates
- TDD is effective if you look at the right things
- Ballmer not the darling of the stock market
- For and Against Test-Driven Development
Archive
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
March 2000
Tag Cloud:
Stats:
- Entries = 357
- Notes = 33
General Links
TDD is effective if you look at the right things
http://theruntime.com/blogs/jacob/archive/2008/01/22/tdd-proven-effective-or-is-it.aspx
It's nothing to do with the initial development. All about the long-term viability of the code. You can't refactor or maintain something if you can't prove your changes haven't broken it. I do believe that the code is better, as long as each test comes directly from the specification, it shows you have understood it.
The comment above about doing your own coverage using the debugger is naive. You can cover everything every time you make a change, or only the tiny bit when you make the next one? Then you start to have something really brittle. Not immediately, but soon (really soon) you will start to feel fear every time you change something. Then you're in trouble.
This research is measuring the wrong thing. I don't know how you'd measure the longevity of the code, but the initial build is only 10% of the effort in any large system. This is not taught at school and it should be. Writing maintainable code that has full tests is not a luxury. Far too many people think it is.
you've missed the point. neither the author of the post, nor the original study compared TDD to people who don't unit test at all (and therefor have nothing to verify regression). you'd be correct if they did. this is a comparison of people who write tests BEFORE they write the actual program (Test Driven Development) to those who write their unit tests AFTER they've written the unit itself. both groups will have tests in place to verify they didn't break things they change later. assuming they write quality tests, which is also part of his discussion. i agree with the point about using a debugger as unit tester. very flawed.