Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Why would you waste your time proving that something you wrote works, if you don't have product-market fit, and you need to throw it all out next week to try to satisfy the market with something different?"

Because somewhere around the 3-6 week mark, having decently-tested code means I move faster, not slower.

And to be honest, I'm too effing old anymore to put up with the endless loop of "oh, this change can't break anything -> ship it -> oh crap, that broke like three things -> fix them -> oh crap, that caused a regression over here -> fix it -> oh crap, that fixed that but now this other thing has regressed -> oh crap, this means my entire architecture is wrong which I would have figured out much earlier if I hadn't been so busy putting out fires". I've wondered how much people complaining about burnout is from them living in that loop. I far prefer my tests to tell me about this than my customers.

Yeah, if you're literally bashing together code in one week, to heck with tests. But I think even in the "startup" space that's a minority. Anything that can be solved in a solid month of coding is already commercially available with half-a-dozen plausible open source alternatives anyhow.



> I far prefer my tests to tell me about this than my customers.

Exactly, if your code is used by customers, then it's tied to revenue, and you should write tests for it. See: (b)


You missed at least part of jerf's point. If your program is non-trivial, you're going to come out ahead from tests even before you ship.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: