This resource is clearly-written, and it distills what a lot of what people gradually learn over years of practicing TDD.
There is a lot of solid reasoning (and examples) leading up to this point, but one notable point was this conclusion:
```
[London-school TDD] sits at the extreme end of the trade-off between coupling and design feedback: incredibly rich feedback about the design of the system, typically resulting in small, hyper-focused units with carefully-chosen naming and easy-to-use APIs. They come at the cost, however, of significantly decreased freedom to refactor the implementation aggressively, which is why Discovery Testing recommends developers default to deleting-and-redeveloping local sub-trees of dependencies when requirements change significantly. This can result in reliably comprehensible designs, but with an increased base cost to requirement changes.
```
I really agree with this. I spent a few years working with a consulting company which preaches London-school TDD. We did a lot of work in dynamic languages, and refactoring was particularly difficult because we had to make sure that all of our mocks (and other test code) lined up with the refactored APIs.
I hate to take the discussion here, but I wonder how Static Typing changes the experience of London-school TDD. Does it become easier and less-frustrating to refactor your test-code?
For a flavor of what everyday Chinese propaganda looks like, consider following @PDChina and @XHNews on Twitter.
This doesn't give you the full picture, since the Twitter accounts are intended to be consumed by foreigners. Nonetheless, it's really easy way to get some idea of the typical tone/topics.
I think it's funny that there are portable coffee stands all over parts of Southeast Asia.
I wonder if most people realize that the "innovation" involved has to do with franchising and finances, rather than the fact that it's a cart that sells coffee.