Comment by kendallpark | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kendallpark | Hacker News Reader

I'm definitely in the TDD-is-not-a-one-size-fits-all programming style camp and I'm glad to see a study that supports that conclusion. I was at Railsconf when DHH said his bit in 2014. My office and I followed the subsequent debates between him and Kent Beck (since my dev group was largely pro-TDD). Lots of anecdotal arguments. It's nice to see some more quantitative data on this!

In my programming experience I've found that I prefer to write tests AFTER I do development of a new feature. Oftentimes the implementation is in such flux that continually updating the test as I go along is tedious and kills the creative flow.

However, when it comes to fixing bugs in existing software, I find it more helpful to write a test that duplicates the bug FIRST, then code the solution.

If anything, the reason to recommend TDD is simply to enforce writing tests to begin with. It's so easy to get a feature working and gloss over testing it.

EDIT: What's up with liquidise's statement about commenting on TDD stories being bad practice? Do the TDD fanatics downvote to hell everything anti-TDD?

> Do the TDD fanatics downvote to hell everything anti-TDD?

I didn't mean to criticize either stance with the statement. I said that because i find most TDD threads on HN get very heated, with commenters being highly polarized and entrenched in their opinions. I've avoided commenting them on the past because of this. But i am happy the discussions under this story are a great deal more civil and informative.

> Do the TDD fanatics downvote to hell everything anti-TDD?

Did you notice the bias in that question?

I'm sorry the sarcastic inflection does not come through the online text.

I read the article, but I haven't read the study. The article seems to show that the study is useless - it proves nothing, it's neither pro-TDD, nor anti-TDD. Taking a seemingly strong side of an argument supported by the study, but not commenting on the linked article itself, can explain the downvotes.

So I read the study. Martin Fowler is correct that you can't make huge generalizations from the study. But the importance is that someone is actually attempting to get quantitative evidence in an argument that has been largely anecdotal for the past several years. As flagrant as DHH's keynote was, back in the day, I think he was right to compare TDD to a fad diet. Yeah, there are people that will absolutely swear by it. But we really won't know until actual studies are done.

If the study showed anything, it was that TDD and TLD might be similarly useful at least on short timescales. I think GP was saying that they believed tests were useful, but that it was unnecessary to strictly stick to doing them the TDD way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com