7 ms·

Great read. This sentence sums it up best I think, "Why, why, why would people expect to get great results if they flaunt all the best-practices that have devel

by 16s 13y ago

Great read. This sentence sums it up best I think, "Why, why, why would people expect to get great results if they flaunt all the best-practices that have developed over the past 20 years?"

beachwood23 13y ago
I don't think he's using the word "flaunt" correctly. It struck me as off -- sure enough, the definition agrees with me. "Flaunt: to parade or display... conspicuously. The use of 'flaunt' to mean 'to ignore or treat with disdain' is strongly objected to by many usage guides.'" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Flaunt http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Flaunt
- theunixbeard 13y ago
  "Flout" is the word most likely intended. flout (verb) 1. openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  It also suggests the word that "flaunt" was likely confused for - "flout." So perhaps the teams are flaunting their ignorance by flouting industry best practices.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  "She" not "He"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
  Quit blaming the individual and focus on the system dang it.
collyw 13y ago
Ok, I will go out on a limb here and say that I don´t unit test (at the moment), as I estimate it would take at least twice as long to write the test code and data as the actual code, as there are many related objects that need to be put together correctly for each test case. I am in the fortunate position of writing an in house Django app, so basically it is in a constant beta state, and I have around 40 beta testers to tell me when things go wrong. Now I see that unit testing would have caught a few of the bugs over the last couple of years (but not that many of them) but in our case, adding new features and adjusting the data model to the constantly changing requirements is more important. My code does get tested, just not automatically. I am not saying that it is a bad idea to unit test, and that I never intend to use it, but for the time being the time costs don´t outweigh the benefits. Also whenever I look at tutorials there is no advice on how to test the parts I want to test. Instead they demonstrate how to test 2 + 2 = 4. I don see the point in that when my application is mainly outputting a moderately complex SQL query results. I can generate a load of objects in the database, and set up unit tests, and have them run each time I update a completely unrelated part of the application, or I can use the real data, and check the results are as expected on my development machine. I know which way is more productive for me.
- scott_s 13y ago
  "Unit" and "automatic" tests are not synonymous. We have a non-trivial system, and mocking the necessary components for unit tests seems like a productivity loss to me. But we absolutely have automated tests; we don't test components in isolation, but as they will behave in production. However, carefully crafted system tests can exercise the parts of the system you want to exercise. You know the little examples you write up yourself to convince yourself that a new piece of functionality actually works? Turn those into tests, and keep them around. I have been saved by those when a seemingly unrelated change caused an error in something I had not anticipated.
  - hackula1 13y ago
    I tend to have strict unit testing with near 100% coverage for libraries. For application code, I use primarily sloppy integration tests. This seems to be the right balance for me anyway. That being said, I try to extract as much app code into libraries as possible.

by 16s 13y ago

Great read. This sentence sums it up best I think, "Why, why, why would people expect to get great results if they flaunt all the best-practices that have developed over the past 20 years?"

beachwood23 13y ago

I don't think he's using the word "flaunt" correctly. It struck me as off -- sure enough, the definition agrees with me. "Flaunt: to parade or display... conspicuously. The use of 'flaunt' to mean 'to ignore or treat with disdain' is strongly objected to by many usage guides.'" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Flaunt http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Flaunt

theunixbeard 13y ago
"Flout" is the word most likely intended. flout (verb) 1. openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anonymoushn 13y ago
It also suggests the word that "flaunt" was likely confused for - "flout." So perhaps the teams are flaunting their ignorance by flouting industry best practices.
cromwellian 13y ago
"She" not "He"
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
0xdeadbeefbabe 13y ago
Quit blaming the individual and focus on the system dang it.

collyw 13y ago

Ok, I will go out on a limb here and say that I don´t unit test (at the moment), as I estimate it would take at least twice as long to write the test code and data as the actual code, as there are many related objects that need to be put together correctly for each test case. I am in the fortunate position of writing an in house Django app, so basically it is in a constant beta state, and I have around 40 beta testers to tell me when things go wrong. Now I see that unit testing would have caught a few of the bugs over the last couple of years (but not that many of them) but in our case, adding new features and adjusting the data model to the constantly changing requirements is more important. My code does get tested, just not automatically. I am not saying that it is a bad idea to unit test, and that I never intend to use it, but for the time being the time costs don´t outweigh the benefits. Also whenever I look at tutorials there is no advice on how to test the parts I want to test. Instead they demonstrate how to test 2 + 2 = 4. I don see the point in that when my application is mainly outputting a moderately complex SQL query results. I can generate a load of objects in the database, and set up unit tests, and have them run each time I update a completely unrelated part of the application, or I can use the real data, and check the results are as expected on my development machine. I know which way is more productive for me.

scott_s 13y ago
"Unit" and "automatic" tests are not synonymous. We have a non-trivial system, and mocking the necessary components for unit tests seems like a productivity loss to me. But we absolutely have automated tests; we don't test components in isolation, but as they will behave in production. However, carefully crafted system tests can exercise the parts of the system you want to exercise. You know the little examples you write up yourself to convince yourself that a new piece of functionality actually works? Turn those into tests, and keep them around. I have been saved by those when a seemingly unrelated change caused an error in something I had not anticipated.
- hackula1 13y ago
  I tend to have strict unit testing with near 100% coverage for libraries. For application code, I use primarily sloppy integration tests. This seems to be the right balance for me anyway. That being said, I try to extract as much app code into libraries as possible.