>2 separate teams get the requirements; one team writes code, the other write tests.
This feels a bit like when you write a layer of encapsulation to try to make a problem easier only to discover that all of the complexity is now in the interface. Isn't converting the PO's requirements into good, testable requirements the hard technical bit?
>If you do it right, the tests are trivial to write and are very short and disposable (so you don't feel bad when you have to delete them in the next refactor).
The raison d'etre of TDD is that developers can't be trusted to write tests that pass for the right reason - that they can't be trusted to write code that isn't buggy. Yet it depends on them being able to write tests with enough velocity that they're cheap enough to dispose?
I don't think TDD gets to own the concept of having a test for what you're refactoring. That's just good practice & doesn't require that you make it fail first.
>at least for anything actively being used and updated
This implies that the strength of the tests appears when it's modified?
Like the article says, TDD doesn't own the concept of testing. You can write good tests without submitting yourself to a dogma of red/green, minimum-passing (local-maximum-seeking) code. Debating TDD is tough because it gets bogged down with having to explain how you're not a troglodyte who writes buggy untested code.
And - on a snarkier note - this is a better argument against dynamic typing than for TDD.
>Also just want to add that working in a physical job for 50 years is much better for your body than sitting at a desk for 50 years.
Not for my carpet-fitting granddad. And it's not like he has a private pension. Desk job damage can mostly be undone by proper exercise: it takes surgery to fix knees.
>With my Windows machine I don't even need to check - of course it will.
Anecdote: I've bought games at launch that failed to boot. I've bought many games that required fiddling with settings (locales, drivers, etc.) to get them working. Linux is a more extreme afterthought but PC is also rarely a first-class citizen.
This feels a bit like when you write a layer of encapsulation to try to make a problem easier only to discover that all of the complexity is now in the interface. Isn't converting the PO's requirements into good, testable requirements the hard technical bit?