On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> >>> >>> If I had to bother with such systematic tests as you suggest, and finish >>> and >>> sign off everything before proceeding further, then nothing would ever >>> get >>> done. (Maybe it's viable if working from an exacting specification that >>> someone else has already worked out.) >> >> >> I wonder whether you're somehow special in that >> testing fundamentally doesn't work for you, or that you actually don't >> need to write tests. > > > I think the point is that a strict test-first discipline goes > against the grain of exploratory programming. > > When you're not sure how to approach a problem, it's useful > to be able to quickly try things out. If you have to write a > bunch of tests for every little thing before you can write > the code for it, you can end up writing a lot of tests for > code that never ends up getting used. That's a good way to > kill all your enthusiasm for a project.
I agree, and that's why I don't tend to go for TDD. But writing tests afterwards is a good thing, something I think bartc seems to disagree with. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
