

Quack-Driven Development is a Waterfowl Methodology for Programmers - kranzky
https://medium.com/@jason_hutchens/tdd-is-canard-tell-it-to-the-duck-207b1d574f23

======
kranzky
I wrote this after the "Is TDD Dead?" debate of a few months ago, and I think
it's high time I published and shared. Comments most welcome!

~~~
taylodl
I'm not a fan of TDD either, but I am a practitioner of what I've dubbed
"Maintenance Driven Development" which I've blogged about here:
[http://taylodl.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/maintenance-
driven-d...](http://taylodl.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/maintenance-driven-
development/)

Bottom line: I prefer writing as few tests as possible to ensure the quality
of the code and Maintenance Driven Development is a practical method for
achieving that.

~~~
kranzky
Yes, the TDD debate really got me thinking about why I write tests. It used to
be about saving me time. Now it seems to be about satisfying other people that
I know what I'm doing.

But I _am_ a fan of code-as-documentation, blindingly obvious business logic
and data validations at the interface, and I was struck by how Uncle Bob's TDD
example just disregards all of that. Hence the QDD piece (which is half
serious, half joking; I've left it a puzzle for the reader to figure out which
half is which).

