Timeline for Is this limitation of Test Driven Development (and Agile in general) practically relevant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2017 at 17:30 | comment | added | svidgen | @AndresF. Oh, it's a good question. It's just the wrong question! ... And, it's good to answer partly because it's wrong. "How do sheep's bladders prevent earthquakes?" is a good question if you think sheep's bladder's prevent earthquakes. But, the right answer isn't going to come form of, "Because ... " It'll come in the form of, "They don't." | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 17:20 | comment | added | Andres F. | Understood. I didn't mean to say you were evangelizing any dogma; my bad if I sounded that way! I meant to argue that TDD's stated goals are sometimes not conducive to escaping local maxima, as asked by the OP. This is because "minimizing risk" or "maximizing ROI" are not goals that help in this matter. Or rather, they are such generic goals they have little impact on finding good solutions. For this reason, I think the OP's question is good. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 15:02 | comment | added | svidgen | @AndresF. Let's not get side tracked on the dogmas I'm not evangelizing here. I'm not advocating for TDD + Agility all the time. Not even Uncle Bob tests all the time. This answer isn't intended to be TDD or Agile propaganda at all. I simply mean to point out that risk mitigation and ROI are the primary goals of TDD + Agile; not "optimal solutions." Though, I would argue that these are reasonable secondary goals in just about any project - even if the only investment you want a return on is your time. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 13:34 | comment | added | Andres F. | This answer is ok, but the problem I have with it (as with some of the other answers) is that "mitigating risk and improving ROI" are not always the best goals. They are not truly goals by themselves, in fact. When you need something to work, mitigating risk ain't gonna cut it. Sometimes relatively undirected small steps as in TDD won't work -- you'll minimize risk alright, but you won't reach anywhere useful in the end. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | svidgen | @FrankPuffer Bah. I tried to update my answer to say it better. I'm not sure I made it better or worse! ... But, I need to get off SE.SE and get back to work. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 22:02 | history | edited | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 750 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 21:21 | comment | added | svidgen | @FrankPuffer Maybe it's worth an addendum. But, the basic point is, you're asking whether these two things achieve something they're not at all designed or intended to achieve. More to it, you're asking if they can achieve something that can't even be measured or verified. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 21:17 | comment | added | svidgen | @Frank My answer is intended to cover both local and global optimums. And the answer either way is "No, that's not what these strategies are designed for -- they're designed to improve ROI and mitigate risk." ... or something like that. And that's partly due to what Jörg's answer gets at: the "optimums" are moving targets. ... I'd even take it a step further; not only are they moving targets, but, they're not entirely objective or measurable. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 21:16 | history | edited | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 20:53 | comment | added | Frank Puffer | True, but I didn't write that the goal of TDD or any other software development method is an optimal solution in the sense of a global optimum. My only concern is that methodologies based on small iterations at source code level might not find any acceptable (good enough) solution at all in many cases | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 17:18 | history | edited | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 17:09 | history | edited | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 120 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 17:02 | history | edited | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1286 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 15:25 | history | edited | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 14:03 | history | answered | svidgen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |