It is so good to hear his views on TDD, I've been trying to tell that TDD isn't about testing, and "unit tests" is not the goal at all. I recently found videos by Kent Beck that supports that view, and now Dan saying exactly the same explicitly.
That's a good point, they are probably two sides of the same coin. He does say that it started with the backronym, and then tried to find terms that matched, and wanted it to be controversial.
Fascinating that somebody with so much experience misses the point so much. Composable = Dependency inversion + easily testable code Unix philosophy = that is Single responsibility p. Predictable = well tested. If you do not think about an edge case when you are writing tests you can miss those cases just as easily during writing the code. Idiomatic, ok, has nothing to do with SOLID or TDD. Means your colleagues can code in the given language, maybe clean code. Domain based, DDD again has nothing to do with SOLID and TDD.
"Composable = Dependency inversion + easily testable code" .... what??? So I guess when the Gof said "prefer composition over inheritance", years before Bob Martin proposed the "Dependency inversion" principle, they must have been confused or something. To suggest composition is a function of Dependency Inversion is just absurd.
It is so good to hear his views on TDD, I've been trying to tell that TDD isn't about testing, and "unit tests" is not the goal at all. I recently found videos by Kent Beck that supports that view, and now Dan saying exactly the same explicitly.
C-omposable
U-nix Philosophy
P-redictable
I-diomatic
D-omain Based
I have found another great mentor!
Great interview! Could you describe the distinction between C and U? To me, they seem like nearly identical synonyms for “small and focused enough”
That's a good point, they are probably two sides of the same coin. He does say that it started with the backronym, and then tried to find terms that matched, and wanted it to be controversial.
Well this channel seems deserve more subscribers
Sadly, nowadays BDD has been converted into a technobabble for QA teams.
And the developers who buy what the QA’s say…
1. Bash on a popular discipline
2. Come up with an acronym
3. ???
4. Profit!
Fascinating that somebody with so much experience misses the point so much.
Composable = Dependency inversion + easily testable code
Unix philosophy = that is Single responsibility p.
Predictable = well tested. If you do not think about an edge case when you are writing tests you can miss those cases just as easily during writing the code.
Idiomatic, ok, has nothing to do with SOLID or TDD. Means your colleagues can code in the given language, maybe clean code.
Domain based, DDD again has nothing to do with SOLID and TDD.
"Composable = Dependency inversion + easily testable code" .... what??? So I guess when the Gof said "prefer composition over inheritance", years before Bob Martin proposed the "Dependency inversion" principle, they must have been confused or something. To suggest composition is a function of Dependency Inversion is just absurd.