Subj : Re: extreme programming (thoughts)
To   : comp.programming,comp.software.extreme-programming,comp.software-eng
From : Phlip
Date : Fri Jul 22 2005 05:21 am

matt wrote:

> > Those are all very healthy indicators. Maybe this XP thing isn't sucking
> > after all.
>
> i think the way i wrote that was confusing -- it takes about 12 seconds
> to execute the 5 tests. writing them (and the sql tests, and the gui
> tests) took a couple days.

Eek. After writing each intermediate test you watched it fail (if you
intended it to fail), and then made it pass, right?

Those tests were each like 5~15 minutes to write, right?

> i stand by my original post -- xp, as it is known at my organization,
> is not an attractive solution to me thus far.

There is something very wrong with your situation. The other 10 programmers
should have been making sure tests are easier to write, over time.

You are the user of the test-side code, and your team should attend to its
usability.

> i am still in the
> learning curve, so perhaps i am not an ideal judge. but....the amount
> of time ive spent writing test cases for this very simple data
> retrieval & binding control is insane. this is a task which i could
> wrap up in a couple of hours.

In general, yes, writing new test for a completely untested, legacy system
might take that long.

You don't have a "legacy" system, meaning a test-free system.

Does _everyone_ there take longer than 5-10 minutes per new test?

> as part of that time, i would have error
> handling & error logging. i just find it very hard to believe that *if*
> there were any bugs w/ my control, it would have taken more time to
> debug & fix it than i spent writing tests. whats more, we must double
> that time, since there were two of us -- would it really take me *four
> days* to debug a problem in this control!? of course not.

Sorry, that's the advanced gains you get if you all do TDD right. You are
not doing it right, so you are correct to note that what you are doing can't
lead to those benefits.

Please read the TDD PDF I fronted, and report any discrepancies.

If you find none, I would need you to write a _detailed_ description of your
current activities, so _I_ can extend my paper to cover the misconceptions
you endure!

You might also like to take a scratch project (such as "convert integers to
roman numerals", or "score a bowling game"), and write it with Pure TDD, as
I specified, and watch how rapid development gets.

> now multiply this for every control, every peice of code everywhere.
> adding up all those (double) man hours, i simply cant imagine QA &
> future debug time being as expensive as development+test time. theres
> no way. in all my years of webdev, ive just never had to spend that
> kind of time on debugging.

Again, your team is not getting the basic advantages, so they can't expect
the advanced ones. If TDD were truly like your experience, _nobody_ would
write books about it!!

I suspect that the pair programming has had a mild disadvantage: To
reinforce a bad form of TDD, to support it, and to teach it. You guys really
need more coaching. (And sorry about my other post[s], but I'm considered
one of the more polite ones!)

Another metric question: How long is the average test case, from top to
bottom? 5 lines? 15 lines? 50 lines?

> but like i said, i develop financial loan application websites -- not
> powergrids.

What's the difference? The first titular XP project was an HR Payroll
application. Who mentioned powergrids?

> maybe the manhours spent on this testing are more useful to
> serious apps, because the code i see in my industry seems to get
> re-written every few years anyway.......

Oh, that's another thing. Code written via XP tends to have very good
staying power. No more rewrites.

-- 
  Phlip
  http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand

.