- Unit testing (Re: Putting project code in many different files) - 2 Updates
- TDD considered harmful - 1 Update
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Feb 09 11:20PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Oh come on, Paavo. There's plenty of room left in your KILL file, so just save yourself the grief :). -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Feb 09 11:24PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> spake the secret code >TDD does not reduce encapsulation ergo it is not toxic when used with a >language like C++. LOL (re: reducing encapsulation). My experience is that TDD gently nudges me in the direction that principles of object-oriented/functional/generic design always recommend. In other words, more encapsulation occurs naturally in the result when doing TDD. Of course, I've seen many people who think they are doing TDD when they aren't. So it sets up a natural straw man for them: "I think I'm doing TDD. This code came out shitty. Therefore, TDD sucks." The flaw of that line of reasoning is in the first statement. This sort of thing can happen regardless of the programming language involved. TDD is a different mindset than what you're used to doing if you've never done TDD before. Initially you are a neophyte and have to follow the "rules" and do what the TDD masters are laying down. Once you've achieved mastery, you'll know where you can bend the rules. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Feb 09 03:03PM -0500 On 2/9/2016 1:04 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > Not even that, just wrong... The ASIC designs I was involved with in the > mid 80s had to have full scan path test coverage. It was a requirement > for military avionics. So you checked every single NAND gate, NOR gate, and inverter on your chip? Individually? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment