this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
1398 points (98.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

32724 readers
339 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've seen some interesting thoughts on TDD with fail, pass, refactor assumptions. I'm curious if anyone here is writing functional code in order to then make a failing functional test pass i.e. BDD / ATDD. This follows similar logic without the refactor assumption. I've seen strong opinions on every side as far as this is concerned. On a team with Dev and QA competencies, I've heard a number of devs glad to get QA out of the bottleneck and put their knowledge to better use.

[โ€“] organicmolecules@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Depends. If I'm working in an existing system and I know what the shape of the thing I'm writing is, then I might write the test first and tdd it out as that process is usually a bit faster for me.

If I'm developing a new feature I'd probably spike out a solution and write an acceptance test to match it, then if I'm feeling pedantic I might throw away the spike code and tdd it back up from scratch but I haven't done that in a while now.

This all depends on the language and the abstraction layer I'm at.