
Test-Driven Development vs. Test-After Development - abl
http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2009/04/08/test-after-development-is-not-test-driven-development.aspx
======
mistercow
I wonder if, one day, people will realize that none of this stuff really
matters. Write and comment your code clearly, think your designs through, and
comply with your team's conventions so that people know what to expect.

None of this stuff (TDD, TAD, XP, Agile, whatever) is computer science. None
of it is science _period_. They're all essentially shamanistic rituals which
"work" by giving you a direction so that you can start writing code. If you
find a methodology works for you, great! Use it! But all this squabbling about
the _one true path_ is nonsense.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
If something as simple as a checklist [1] can have a meaningful impact on
patient care in hospitals, I think it's worth talking about the equivalent in
software.

Neither claims to be any kind of science, but both can save the day by
compensating for the natural human foibles of the practitioner.

[1]:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande)

~~~
mistercow
Sure, having an organization strategy is a good plan, and I didn't mean to
imply otherwise. The problem I have is with people claiming that their way is
the "right" way without having any legitimate scientific backing for the
claim.

