Hi Marnen, > have too much pride in my work to sell them a clunker that will be in > the shop all the time. I'm not willing to compromise on quality -- and > test-first development helps ensure that I can develop high-quality
What you're claiming is that to not employ formal testing is tantamount to shoddy work. But the proof is in the pudding. I never would have survived as an independent computer consultant for decades if potential clients suspected I did shoddy work. They always new what my previous engagements had been and I'm sure checked to their heart's content. And I was always constrained to use the client's chosen programming language though I'd often wished I could use something better. Introducing foreign ideas like writing tests while no visible repairs or new functionality emerged would not fly. Finally, the fact that I didn't use formal testing regimes does not mean that I did no testing! > That doesn't impress me without knowing more about the organization and > his role there. Too many big organizations don't understand the 'Net. So you think a guy with the title Internet Architect in a national organization in constant computer communication with in multiple cities in almost every state in the U.S. might just be boob when it comes to the Internet? Do you think he might also be a jerk even if he graduated college summa cum laude from an accredited university might be unsophisticated. And that he's developing through me an expense tracking system for two private schools he owns and operates might not have a clue as to the impact of code I/m writing. I work on this for two reasons. (1) To help my son reduce the burden of managing a small enterprise.and (2) after toying with Ruby and Rails for years in retirement, to finally dig in to these technologies and hang out my shingle again offering web development services for small business. > Waiiiiiiiit...so it's up to your client to tell you whether you're > hacking? WTF? How is he even in a position to know? YES. And I hope you think I've answered the second question. He's written a ton of Java and WSDL and Unix and Linux and Windows and plenty of other stuff I know nothing about, like those packages for administering large organizations. > > But I'm a version of the earlier > > you. So, like you, I get to Agile-land. But, like St. Augustine, > > I'll give up sin, but not right now :-) > > Are you sure you want to model your behavior on a fairly hypocritical > line? :) Shucks, Marnen. I thought that last line was the best one in my entire reply. BTW, as I mentioned to Colin, I've been playing around with unit- testing today. I feel like writing a generator to populate views when columns are added/renamed/dropped from a DB table. It annoys my that there's no tool to do that. Best wishes as always, Richard On May 16, 10:57 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote: > RichardOnRails wrote: > > [...] > > >> do you really want to work for clients who don't > >> understand the importance of doing it right? > > > Absolutely! First of all they paid me well. And if you've got kids to > > feed or a mortgagee to repay, that's important. > > Of course, but... > > > Secondly, clients > > asked me to produce or modify code quickly, and they have a right to > > buy Volkswagen code rather than Cadillac code, as do buyers for > > cars. > > Like Colin, I think this is a poor analogy. What I'd say about my own > practise is this: I'll be happy to develop a VW or a Cadillac as the > project requires. What I will not do -- ever -- is skimp on the safety > features. Regardless of whether I sell my clients a VW or a Cadillac, I > have too much pride in my work to sell them a clunker that will be in > the shop all the time. I'm not willing to compromise on quality -- and > test-first development helps ensure that I can develop high-quality > software quickly. > > If someone wants a car made with substandard materials, or with steering > that loses control, he will not find it on my lot. I can make that > guarantee because of my testing procedures. > > > > >> > I am responding to his wishes. > >> No, you're not. > > You're assuming he's some Neanderthal. In fact, he spent almost ten > > years as the Internet Architect for a national organization. > > That doesn't impress me without knowing more about the organization and > his role there. Too many big organizations don't understand the 'Net. > > >> You're giving him hacked, brittle results. That's worse than none at all. > > That's not the view of my well-informed client. We've talked about > > it. > > Waiiiiiiiit...so it's up to your client to tell you whether you're > hacking? WTF? How is he even in a position to know? > > > > >> I used to develop without tests too. Never again. > > I happy that you have that luxury. > > It is not a luxury. It is a necessity. (Actually, I'd really like to > do proof-carrying code, but I'm not sure how feasible that actually is.) > It only seems like a luxury till you try it and watch it saving your > ass. > > > But I'm a version of the earlier > > you. So, like you, I get to Agile-land. But, like St. Augustine, > > I'll give up sin, but not right now :-) > > Are you sure you want to model your behavior on a fairly hypocritical > line? :) > > > Very best wishes, with appreciation of your insights, > > Richard > > Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > [email protected] > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
