> In fact the vast majority of bugs are the result of not testing changes at all
I never said every programmer tests 100% of their code all of the time. Even when you're just checking the output of a "hello world", you're effectively testing your code. It might be the only test ever made, but it is a test.
> In fact the vast majority of bugs are the result of not testing changes at all
Now you're making a bold claim that, AFAIK, isn't backed up by research.
Just to be clear, I like tests, and I like automated tests even more. I just don't think they necessarily merit 50% of my own time because they're not some panacea that will magically auto correct badly designed software. Test are written to find bugs, not to eliminate them altogether; you can't guarantee your code is bug free because of tests.
I never said every programmer tests 100% of their code all of the time. Even when you're just checking the output of a "hello world", you're effectively testing your code. It might be the only test ever made, but it is a test.
> In fact the vast majority of bugs are the result of not testing changes at all
Now you're making a bold claim that, AFAIK, isn't backed up by research.
Just to be clear, I like tests, and I like automated tests even more. I just don't think they necessarily merit 50% of my own time because they're not some panacea that will magically auto correct badly designed software. Test are written to find bugs, not to eliminate them altogether; you can't guarantee your code is bug free because of tests.