flankk: I never said I'm against testing, I just don't do it and these are some of my reasons. I'm mostly against those who think if you don't test, you are automatically stupid. I'm not writing a banking application, I can afford to fail sometimes. Usually your code fails in places you wouldn't think about, testing will not prevent that.
flankk: I can't stay agile when I'm rewriting 500 tests that failed because I changed the implementation of a method.
I think I'm going to start posting these short posts (mattly style) when I see something ridiculous or interesting on #ror.
I was there (amerine) this shit gets hilarious.
Posted by: Mark Turner | March 14, 2009 at 03:25 AM
C'mon, this person was kidding.
Posted by: Joon You | March 14, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Seemed dead serious to me.
Posted by: Josh Goebel | March 14, 2009 at 03:48 PM
Haha
Posted by: Matías | March 15, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Care to actually refute his arguments? Like, with counter-arguments and stuff?
Posted by: Peter | March 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM
If you have to ask you missed the point.
Posted by: Josh Goebel | March 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM
The point is, this is far from obvious enough for newbies to understand. If you did give an explanation it might actually help to get more people to do test-driven development.
Posted by: Peter | March 16, 2009 at 01:21 PM
This post isn't for newbies.
Posted by: Josh Goebel | March 16, 2009 at 11:20 PM
This -> Usually your code fails in places you wouldn't think about, testing will not prevent that. <- was my favourite :)
Posted by: JasonKing | March 18, 2009 at 11:27 PM
> Care to actually refute his arguments?
I'll give it a shot. (Going backwards)
> I can't stay agile when I'm rewriting 500 tests that failed because I changed the implementation of a method.
It's my understanding of good tests that the one thing they don't do is test the implementation of a method. Tests should be testing what a method does, not how it does it. If changing the implementation breaks your tests, it's a sign that your tests are wrong, not that testing is wrong.
> Usually your code fails in places you wouldn't think about, testing will not prevent that.
Even if that's true, the idea isn't that you should throw away your tests when your failure comes from something you didn't test. At that point you should write a test for that case, then fix it, and then testing will prevent it from happening again.
Posted by: Chris | March 19, 2009 at 05:31 PM
Testing are for pussies.
Posted by: Zed Shaw | March 24, 2009 at 09:58 AM
If you never do testing, what is this: http://www.pastie.org/1
?
Posted by: Mark Fowler | March 26, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Hahaha. I love testing. I can't believe how the benefits aren't obvious to everyone.
Posted by: Josh Goebel | March 27, 2009 at 04:44 AM
There is a plugin named Shoulda from ThoughtBot, it really makes writing tests a a breeze...
http://dev.thoughtbot.com/shoulda/
but you guys probably already know of it... lulz
Posted by: steve | April 02, 2009 at 02:53 AM
What have you got when it's both ridiculous and interesting?
Posted by: Jesse | April 16, 2009 at 08:31 AM