"Joel Spolksy is wrong about my work" - Kent Beck

Re:"Joel Spolksy is wrong about my work" - Kent Beck by joe_the_user on Wednesday February 04, 2009 @02:36AM (#465399)

I've generally had some antipathy to Joel Spolsky, seeing him as more management oriented than programmer oriented. But I have to say that he seems both right and honest here.

TDD is great if you use it appropriate along with good design - but "tests for everything" is just ideology. As he says, it's like the old OO schema, where you created these ridiculous inheritance trees and unnecessarily complex diagrams and such.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:"Joel Spolksy is wrong about my work" - Kent Beck by dws on Wednesday February 04, 2009 @02:38AM (#465402)

If Spolsky is going after "tests for everything", his target is Robert Martin, not Kent Beck. Beck freely admits that he doesn't test everything. Pulling Beck into the argument feels like a cheap debate trick.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:"Joel Spolksy is wrong about my work" - Kent Beck by jacobscott on Wednesday February 04, 2009 @03:55AM (#465467)

If you are:

* selling software people pay money for

* writing software people install -- that is, /not/ web stuff

Then under what circumstances would it make sense to ship untested code? When is there a difference between code that has unit tests, versus that with only end-to-end tests?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:"Joel Spolksy is wrong about my work" - Kent Beck by silentbicycle on Wednesday February 04, 2009 @07:51AM (#465666)

I don't think anybody is arguing that shipping completely untested code is a good idea.

[ Parent | on HN ]