Comments on: Software That Goes Clunk

By: Julian

Julian — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:34:01 +0000

At least some people agree with your view that "Made with Unit Testing" is a key quality indicator.

They spend a total of 12 words on their home page describing the component before giving the key links and launching into example code on how to use it.

Five of those words describe what it does. Two describe the technology. Two describe the license. The other three are "3000 unit tests."

(Of course they could be 3000 worthless unit tests, but they certainly give the impression that they are serious about it.)

By: Aristotle Pagaltzis

Aristotle Pagaltzis — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:13:26 +0000

I invite you to skim through all the posts for 2008 but particularly the summaries. And it only gets better.

Yeah, your language could do that too… but does it? We’ve got your test religion right here.

By: Steve Campbell

Steve Campbell — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:10:44 +0000

There is no empirical evidence that unit testing is a better software quality technique when compared with other quality-inducing tools and practices (code reviews, test-after, etc). To my recollection, given current evidence, the winner of that fight would be one of the many types of formal code review.

By: Sunny Kalsi

Sunny Kalsi — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:28:15 +0000

Just because software is unit tested doesn’t mean it’s unit tested well. Just because software is covered doesn’t mean it’s covered well. This is sort of the exact problem with ISO9000 – It’s more about intent, and less about a check-box. You can pay lip service to any sort of metric. Just look at Agitar!