> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 09:38 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
>> this sounds a bit like the test driven programming method, where you
>> write
>> the all the tests first (sometimes this is done by another programmer),
>> then when all the tests pass you've finished. this is the reverse of how
>> most people do it, but it's much more effective.
>
> More effective at what? Again, it might be useful for strictly designed
> business logic, but can be a disaster in creative programming where
> aberration is desirable. Personally I find this kind of approach
> dehumanising, particularly for the programmer who has to write the
> sourcecode against the tests. It seems a good approach for industrial
> programming and for bug fixing though.
yes, I would generally agree with you on that - but I think there is some
worth in examining and comparing the methods of professional programming,
if only because a huge amount of effort has been expended thinking about
how people think and build things.
I think it's interesting to acknowledge the fact that we tend to write
programs in this nonlinear order - ie leaving undone bits to come back to
later, forgetfully, and not in an order which keeps it runnable all the
time.
cheers,
dave
Received on Thu Sep 21 2006 - 19:14:08 BST