Mar
25
4

Innovation in Practice?

Author Eli Lopian    Category .NET Tests     Tags

Bob Walsh has pointed to a cool Guy Kawasaki Video about the 10 things (actually 11) you need to know about the Art of Innovation.
I was wondering if TypeMock was Innovative according to Guys Scale.

Well here goes:

1. Make Meaning not Money:
TypeMock was started to help teams get to speed with TDD, and create better software.

2. A 2/3 Word Mantra:
“Enabling TDD”

3. Jump to the next curb:
I am not sure about this. TypeMock might be just a better mocking system, although we do see it as jumping the curb as it uses new techniques like AOP and not just more/better APIs

4. Roll the DICEE, Deep, Intelligent, Complete, Elegant, Emotize:

Deep - Perhaps supporting Multi-Threads could be called deep.
Intelligent – Well we just got more intelligent  (Perhaps one day TypeMock will write the mocks itself)
Complete – We are trying to give a complete solution. We have a Pre-Sales and Support Group although I know that we need more examples and training materials
Elegant – I think that NaturalMocks is.
Emotize – Hmm? Do you feel passionate about TypeMock?

5. Don’t Worry be Crappy:
The first version crashed when a struct was being mocked :-)

6. Don’t be afraid to Polarize people:
Some people just hate TypeMock, Others swear by it.

7. Let 100 flowers blossom – expect the product being used in strange ways:
I don’t think this happened yet.

8. Churn Babe Churn:
I hopethat TypeMock is getting better all the time.

9. Niche Thyself:
Well I believe that we are in a Niche, But is TypeMock a Unique and High Value Product? Hmm

10. 10:20:30 You will have to listen to the Video for this.

I would really like to know what you think about

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments to “Innovation in Practice?”

  • Eduardo Miranda March 29, 2007 at 1:20 am

    I’ve saw Guy’s presentation and I recently tested TypeMock to write an article about mock tools (for a Brazilian magazine). Therefore I think I can leave my 2 cents about the subject.

    7. Let the 100 flowers bloom – It seems that this a “What if” scenario. I mean, if people are only using TypeMock to mock .Net objects why should you care? The point Guy is trying to emphasize is: If people are buying your MP3 device to use as memory stick let them buy!

    6. Don’t be afraid to polarize people – Well you get your bases covered here ranting against “design for testability” 

    9. Niche thyself – Despite your believes about “design for testability” I think TypeMock has found quite a niche: legacy code that doesn’t support test isolation. And for this particular use TypeMock is unique and valuable. I’m saying you a only focusing this niche, but I’m sure in this niche you are very strong.

    That’s it, good luck for you guys.

  • Eli Lopian March 29, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Eduardo,
    Thank for the feedback. I would like to read your article.

    I guess that I do rant against the design for testability.

    I don’t think that Legacy code is the correct terminology, its all code that wasn’t built with test hooks in place. It might be legacy, it could have been written 5 minutes before by someone else on your team.
    I have yet to come up with a better terminology. I thought of Untestable Code, but it is no good because with typemock the code is testable.

  • Eduardo Miranda March 29, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Yeap, you are right about that, probably 80% of the .net code lines written today won’t have unit tests and neither are being written with testability in mind. That why I think you have quite a good niche to work ;) . Maybe find a proper name it’s going to harder.

    About the article I will try to send you a copy, but it has been written in Portuguese and unfortunately there isn’t too many pictures :) . But I’ll send you anyway

  • Eli Lopian March 29, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Thanks. I’ll try to translate it (BabelFish)

Post comment