TDD is BS?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:25:41 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your clarification! This is much more helpful than the
> definitions of TDD that I found online (e.g. on Wikipedia).
> 
> I will say, though, that this seems to be just Yet Another Buzzword
> for "API design". (I'm automatically skeptical when buzzwords are
> involved, because all too often, buzzwords are employed to make
> something rather ordinary appear to be special.)

I feel the same way.

> OTOH, not all APIs should be designed to cater to the users' POV. I've
> encountered APIs that were *not* "convenient" in the way that I had
> preconceived, but in the end, it turned out that by forcing me to do
> things the "inconvenient" way, it not only opened up brand new ways of
> thinking about the problem, but also guided me into approaching the
> problem from an angle that is *efficient to implement*. It's just like
> Knuth said:
> 
> 	"People who are more than casually interested in computers
> 	should have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware
> 	is like. Otherwise the programs they write will be pretty
> 	weird."
> 
> So I think a balance needs to be struck between what users would like
> it to be, vs. what is a good way of approaching the problem.  API's
> should not be so far removed from their implementations that the
> resulting code becomes "pretty weird", as Knuth puts it. TDD is good
> and all, but there's the danger of pushing it too far and applying it
> where it's not applicable.
> 

Right. It's like creating a Vacuum Cleaner or a car or a kitchen
appliance by designing the case, housing and controls first, and then
trying to design working internals to fit that mold. Form needs to
follow function.