6 Comments
User's avatar
David Whitney's avatar

Love John's book, but a lot of his views on TDD definitely come across as someone that's only experienced it as "writing unit tests test first" rather than designing APIs and the outer edges of modules test first - which ironically achieves exactly what he thinks TDD is lacking.

Expand full comment
Neeraj Krishnan's avatar

I am a simple man. I see "John Ousterhout", I hit "like".

Expand full comment
Code + Philosophy's avatar

Definitely agree with decomposition. Love your work and the guests. Keep them coming.

Expand full comment
Stefan's avatar

On TDD: I think it doesn't have to be so tactical as outlined. It's big benefit is focusing on the minimal need. It's pitfall is not doing refactoring before and after, because that's what's going to drive architectural and design thinking. Initial refactoring, after writing the test, asks the question of "How should the code look like so that I can implement the test as naturally as possible". Refactoring after implementing the test should ask "How can we improve by looking at areas of code that weren't directly touched by implementing this test/feature".

Expand full comment
Stefan's avatar

On TDD: I think it doesn't have to be so tactical as outlined. It's big benefit is focusing on the minimal need. It's pitfall is not doing refactoring before and after, because that's what's going to drive architectural and design thinking. Initial refactoring, after writing the test, asks the question of "How should the code look like so that I can implement the test as naturally as possible". Refactoring after implementing the test should ask "How can we improve by looking at areas of code that weren't directly touched by implementing this test/feature".

Expand full comment
Matej Vitásek's avatar

Looking forward to this episode a lot! Especially because I can take what I read over at Kent Beck's newsletter and try to debate in his voice in my head :D

On a practical note, before starting the podcast, I went through the derived article and found the format a bit confusing (summary 1 - linear list of topics - summary 2).

Thinking about it more I believe it could be improved by inlining the Timestamps into the following Summary section, would that be practical?

Expand full comment