connect four (game)

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc <bc at freeuk.com> wrote:
 >
>>If I had to bother with such systematic tests as you suggest, and finish and
>>sign off everything before proceeding further, then nothing would ever get
>>done. (Maybe it's viable if working from an exacting specification that
>>someone else has already worked out.)
> 
> I wonder whether you're somehow special in that
> testing fundamentally doesn't work for you, or that you actually don't
> need to write tests.

I think the point is that a strict test-first discipline goes
against the grain of exploratory programming.

When you're not sure how to approach a problem, it's useful
to be able to quickly try things out. If you have to write a
bunch of tests for every little thing before you can write
the code for it, you can end up writing a lot of tests for
code that never ends up getting used. That's a good way to
kill all your enthusiasm for a project.

Also, stopping to write tests all the time interrupts your
flow of thought. You're deep into details of the solution,
you realise you need class X, then you have to stop and write
tests for X. That makes you think a lot about all the details
of X, and by the time you're finished you've lost track of
the big picture.

I don't think anyone disputes that having a reasonably
complete set of tests is a good thing. The argument is
about whether it's strictly necessary to write the tests
*first* in all cases.

Maybe you find it's a useful discipline that helps ensure
the tests get written. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that
*everyone* should be forced to do it that way all the time,
even if they're just programming for a hobby. That's confusing
the desired end result with a particular means of achieving
it.

-- 
Greg