Re:Turning Claude Code into My Best Design Partner
by MoreQARespect on Sunday August 24, 2025 @07:19AM
(#45003330)
TDD fizzled because not enough emphasis was put on writing high level tests which matched user stories and too much emphasis was put on it as a tool of design.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Turning Claude Code into My Best Design Partner
by SkyPuncher on Sunday August 24, 2025 @07:59AM
(#45003559)
No, TDD failed because it assumed you could design a perfect systems before implementation.
It’s a totally waste of time to do TDD to only find out you made a bad design choice or discovered a conflicting problem.
Re:Turning Claude Code into My Best Design Partner
by matijsvzuijlen on Sunday August 24, 2025 @08:03AM
(#45003585)
What makes you think TDD assumes that? It sounds like the complete opposite of what TDD is about.
Re:Turning Claude Code into My Best Design Partner
by MoreQARespect on Sunday August 24, 2025 @09:03AM
(#45003967)
This is precisely the problem I alluded to which is solved by writing higher level tests with TDD that make fewer assumptions about your design.
TDD ought to let you make a bad design decision and then refactoring it while keeping the test as is.
Re:Turning Claude Code into My Best Design Partner
by BoiledCabbage on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:09AM
(#45010414)
Roughly how many test on average would you write before beginning implementation?
Re:Turning Claude Code into My Best Design Partner
by stpedgwdgfhgdd on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:13PM
(#45016167)
“TDD failed because it assumed you could design a perfect systems before implementation”
TDD states the opposite.
TDD is very hard to do right and takes a lot of discipline. If i hadn’t worked for a company that did 100% XP, i would not have either believed it could be so effective. (Best Enterprise software i’ve ever seen and written)
In a way, it is funny. You can practise XP with your AI as pair.