On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 12:16 +1000, Benno wrote: > I think the idea that the TDD guys are putting forward is that "Make it NICE" > (e.g: > automated test suite), means that you can make it "RIGHT" and "FAST" with > less effort > than if you didn't have an automated test suite.
I looked at this again... "RIGHT", absolutely. If it is not right then add another test and ensure it is never wrong the same way twice. You can still write horrible code that works correctly. ** Hands up who has re-introduced a bug after making a coding change. If you say never then you either have not done much or you simply did not know that you had. I was surprised that with my first self testing application how many times I reintroduced a bug, my average was one every 6 months because I forgot that edge case which my test cases remembered. Guess what it cost me about 5 minutes a piece, imagine if I was not supported by self testing. "FAST" this is never a concern for me. Imagine my frustration with arguing that the Perl interpreter takes too long to start. Talk about false optimisation, an argument for another day. However... When you want to make it fast you can be sure that your performance changes do not break your application because they are wrong. -- Ken Foskey FOSS developer ** If I was truly worried about the quality of the code I can reliably refactor the code to be nice. I mean reliably, no missed tests. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
