Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#11

Post by kennethtilton »

humbledrone wrote: post #7
kennethtilton wrote: post #5

TDD is overrated and overused, with no regard for the cost of developing/maintaining the test suite. You should join them -- you will probably learn something about building correct software, such as "automated regression testing is not the only way". Ironically, tonight I have fired up the RT I use for one subsystem because it needs work. ie, RT has its place, but the TDD crowd thinks every place is that place. btw,…

You rail about TDD, but the OP is talking about tests in general, quoting, "They don't test their code at all." I personally thing that TDD is totally backwards and braindead, but unit tests... you just have to have them. The only acceptable time to eschew basic unit tests is if you plan to throw the code away SOON (and have a blood pact about killing it for sure).

Ha-ha, quote further! "They don't test their code at all (and instead run through tests manually..". Actually, I meant to mention that as another sign of cultdom: the verb "test" now means "automated test". Manually testing does not count, nor do any of the other ways we can get to correctnes without TDD.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#12

Post by kennethtilton »

dootdoot wrote: post #8
kennethtilton wrote: post #5

TDD is overrated and overused, with no regard for the cost of developing/maintaining the test suite. You should join them -- you will probably learn something about building correct software, such as "automated regression testing is not the only way". Ironically, tonight I have fired up the RT I use for one subsystem because it needs work. ie, RT has its place, but the TDD crowd thinks every place is that place. btw,…

Yeah, it's not about TDD, it's about having your testing be a non-automated checklist (without unit tests where useful)

Granted I am reading between the lines, but I think the OP was indeed concerned that this great new team he found was not a member of the TDD cult. As i just threaded separately, they equated testing with automated testing, and that set of my cult alarm.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#13

Post by kennethtilton »

humbledrone wrote: post #6

Hell no. Hacking together a crappy throwaway minimum viable product with no tests is one thing, but if this company is "quite successful" (as you say) it is probably past the time where they should have started writing tests. In the even slightly long term, tests don't slow things down, they keep things fast. It is MUCH easier to change and maintain code with good tests. Think about it this way: when you write code,…

Get over it. They are successful without TDD. It is extremely possible, and then one does not have to slave over a hundred lines of tests when one decides to write ten lines of code. TDD has its place, but it is a relatively small place (and then, yes, it is worth its weight in gold -- I do it often).

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#14

Post by zura »

kennethtilton wrote: post #11
humbledrone wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You rail about TDD, but the OP is talking about tests in general, quoting, "They don't test their code at all." I personally thing that TDD is totally backwards and braindead, but unit tests... you just have to have them. The only acceptable time to eschew basic unit tests is if you plan to throw the code away SOON (and have a blood pact about killing it for sure).

Ha-ha, quote further! "They don't test their code at all (and instead run through tests manually..". Actually, I meant to mention that as another sign of cultdom: the verb "test" now means "automated test". Manually testing does not count, nor do any of the other ways we can get to correctnes without TDD.

Automated testing is not necessary TDD.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#15

Post by jdietrich »

kennethtilton wrote: post #11
humbledrone wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You rail about TDD, but the OP is talking about tests in general, quoting, "They don't test their code at all." I personally thing that TDD is totally backwards and braindead, but unit tests... you just have to have them. The only acceptable time to eschew basic unit tests is if you plan to throw the code away SOON (and have a blood pact about killing it for sure).

Ha-ha, quote further! "They don't test their code at all (and instead run through tests manually..". Actually, I meant to mention that as another sign of cultdom: the verb "test" now means "automated test". Manually testing does not count, nor do any of the other ways we can get to correctnes without TDD.

Your conflation of TDD with automated testing is not helpful.

As software developers, the essence of our profession is to automate repetitive tasks. If you have a rigorous manual testing methodology for your software, it should be a trivial task to turn that test specification into automated tests. The absence of a suite of automated tests is a major red flag in any non-trivial software project - it strongly suggests that either the developers do not care about quality, that they do not understand their work well enough to manage quality in a systematic way, or that they are too haphazard and disorganised to manage their project appropriately.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#16

Post by palidanx »

When starting an mvp, you are bleeding (usually) bootstrapped cash. In that scenario the priority is really to get the product out the door, and some stable revenue stream. Testing is often put the wayside just to survive.

In an ideal software development scenario where you have a budget, then yes, testing should be there in the beginning.

But if it is a start-up, I'm tempted to give slack for the lack of a framework. And it seems like if you come in, you might be the person to lead the testing framework which would be a good thing.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#17

Post by kennethtilton »

jdietrich wrote: post #15
kennethtilton wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha-ha, quote further! "They don't test their code at all (and instead run through tests manually..". Actually, I meant to mention that as another sign of cultdom: the verb "test" now means "automated test". Manually testing does not count, nor do any of the other ways we can get to correctnes without TDD.

Your conflation of TDD with automated testing is not helpful. As software developers, the essence of our profession is to automate repetitive tasks. If you have a rigorous manual testing methodology for your software, it should be a trivial task to turn that test specification into automated tests. The absence of a suite of automated tests is a major red flag in any non-trivial software project - it strongly suggests…

I am just waiting for someone to ask, "How else can one achieve correctness?" :)

But cults do not do that, they just accuse non-believers, in this case, that they do not care about correctness.

That's like saying Messner and Habeler did not care about safety because they climbed extreme pitches unroped where other pairs roped up and moved one at a time. But M&H were very good climbers and got up and down twice as fast as the others, who doubled their risk of the weather turning on them by being "safe". If you know your mountaineering, the latter is usually how folks die on mountains.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#18

Post by kennethtilton »

zura wrote: post #14
kennethtilton wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha-ha, quote further! "They don't test their code at all (and instead run through tests manually..". Actually, I meant to mention that as another sign of cultdom: the verb "test" now means "automated test". Manually testing does not count, nor do any of the other ways we can get to correctnes without TDD.

Automated testing is not necessary TDD.

OK, I'll stop saying TDD. :)

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#19

Post by dootdoot »

kennethtilton wrote: post #12
dootdoot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's not about TDD, it's about having your testing be a non-automated checklist (without unit tests where useful)

Granted I am reading between the lines, but I think the OP was indeed concerned that this great new team he found was not a member of the TDD cult. As i just threaded separately, they equated testing with automated testing, and that set of my cult alarm.

as the actual OP, I can definitely say I wasn't talking about TDD. I mean integration tests like "Hey, we aren't double charging this person" or tests to make sure that bugs stay fixed. It doesn't matter to me if you write tests before or after the fact, you just should be testing so you can have some sort of sense of correctness.

Re: Ask HN: Would you join a startup that doesn't test? Are tests impediments?

#20

Post by kennethtilton »

dootdoot wrote: post #19
kennethtilton wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted I am reading between the lines, but I think the OP was indeed concerned that this great new team he found was not a member of the TDD cult. As i just threaded separately, they equated testing with automated testing, and that set of my cult alarm.

as the actual OP, I can definitely say I wasn't talking about TDD. I mean integration tests like "Hey, we aren't double charging this person" or tests to make sure that bugs stay fixed. It doesn't matter to me if you write tests before or after the fact, you just should be testing so you can have some sort of sense of correctness.

That's fine. My point was that for you automated testing is a litmus test that turned you against a successful group of great guys. What I do in those situations is check my presuppositions. Maybe I can learn something.

Did you ask them about their practice? Did you ask how often they had to roll back deployments, or at least take a hit on something automated testing would have caught?

Post reply on HN