Why TDD isn't crap

Re:Why TDD isn't crap by ubu7737 on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:47PM (#15594612)

> code which is hard to test is almost always going to be hard to maintain

This is a pointless equivalence to make. You're trying to suggest that code which is hard to test could be written differently, and better. This is not always true, and therefore useless to say.

STUXNET was very difficult to test. Reports are that it required an entire Israeli nuclear facility as a test environment. Would you suggest that STUXNET was written to a substandard level of professionalism? I doubt it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why TDD isn't crap by sushisource on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @12:57PM (#15594676)

You're missing the word "almost". It's important. Attacking parent comment with an absurd statement no one would agree with isn't a great argument.

He literally admits it's not always true in the sentence

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why TDD isn't crap by tieTYT on Tuesday October 31, 2017 @01:09PM (#15594775)

Maybe it's only difficult to test end-to-end? I would assume there's code in there that's algorithm-like. Give it these inputs, it should return these outputs. If so, it should be possible to isolate that code and test it.

But, I dunno, I haven't looked at the source code. It might be very difficult to maintain.

[ Parent | on HN ]