11–20 of 52 posts
My point being that unit testing essentially gives you the same confidence in your refactoring efforts that Scientist proposes to offer. Tests already demand that your interface remains the same, and that old code does no harm when replacng legacy.
Scientist is cool. It's a little annoying that the article makes it seem like no one has thought of this before Github. But whatever, maybe more people will learn about the pattern and use it. The other implicit conclusion that the article is making, that this will somehow make software more like a traditional engineering discipline also makes me a little uncomfortable. There still is no silver bullet. http://c2.com/…
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this approach differ from traditional unit testing or end to end testing? My point being that unit testing essentially gives you the same confidence in your refactoring efforts that Scientist proposes to offer. Tests already demand that your interface remains the same, and that old code does no harm when replacng legacy.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this approach differ from traditional unit testing or end to end testing? My point being that unit testing essentially gives you the same confidence in your refactoring efforts that Scientist proposes to offer. Tests already demand that your interface remains the same, and that old code does no harm when replacng legacy.
the sort of stuff you usually mock out in unit tests. and may not be feasible to have a whole copy of your prod 'big data' and services just for testing on
with Scientist you get a report not just of mismatched results and exceptions (stuff good tests should usually be able to catch) but also if the new code is slower
Scientist is cool. It's a little annoying that the article makes it seem like no one has thought of this before Github. But whatever, maybe more people will learn about the pattern and use it. The other implicit conclusion that the article is making, that this will somehow make software more like a traditional engineering discipline also makes me a little uncomfortable. There still is no silver bullet. http://c2.com/…
is there a generic name for this type of thing? not sure how to google for existing implementations
The analogy does not seem to fit. Of course they built the new bridge before tearing down the old one. There is not really an option to divert traffic, it has to cross the bay. The Scientist software copies the input and feeds it into two systems in parallel. There is no analogy for that in real life. There is no way to copy cars. And I really hope they do not actually need to run load tests for bridges after they ha…
Lot of comments here attacking the analogy. It's just a throwaway analogy. Can we just overlook non-essential parts of the article and discuss the code and techniques instead?
Software engineering is extremely unlike bridges in that bridges get constructed once. Software gets constructed (from source to machine code) every time you build and run it.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this approach differ from traditional unit testing or end to end testing? My point being that unit testing essentially gives you the same confidence in your refactoring efforts that Scientist proposes to offer. Tests already demand that your interface remains the same, and that old code does no harm when replacng legacy.
The analogy does not seem to fit. Of course they built the new bridge before tearing down the old one. There is not really an option to divert traffic, it has to cross the bay. The Scientist software copies the input and feeds it into two systems in parallel. There is no analogy for that in real life. There is no way to copy cars. And I really hope they do not actually need to run load tests for bridges after they ha…
Scientist is cool. It's a little annoying that the article makes it seem like no one has thought of this before Github. But whatever, maybe more people will learn about the pattern and use it. The other implicit conclusion that the article is making, that this will somehow make software more like a traditional engineering discipline also makes me a little uncomfortable. There still is no silver bullet. http://c2.com/…
is there a generic name for this type of thing? not sure how to google for existing implementations
[1] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/BranchByAbstraction.html
[2] http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/StranglerApplication.html