begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:10:06PM -0700: > Bob La Quey wrote: > > On 10/24/07, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Something about actually seeing a mountain of unit tests seems to scare > >> off the cowboy coders.
...because getting tricky in unit tests gets you laughed at. Nobody admires subtle and elegant in a unit test. > > This sounds true to me. I suspect is is also true though > > that a mountain of unit tests can be a giant pile of shit that > > enforces a poor solution to a problem. > > > > At least half the time I will go with the cowboys. One man's cowboy is another's process-ogre. > As a programmer, all I can say is that if I had to _pay_ for my > mistakes, then I wouldn't be without unit tests. You're penalizing the wrong level with that approach, if that's the only change. You have to penalize management who cranks up the schedule, and ladles "process" across everyone like it's a magic gravy, and demands that quality improve as well. > ..and some arguments do pop up now and then for making software > providers pay for mistakes. What's the phrase? "Fit for merchantability" ? -- Still can't quite manage to write the unit tests first. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
