Innovation in Practice?
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
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0
4 Responses to “Innovation in Practice?”
1 Eduardo Miranda 29 March 2007 @ 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.
2 Eli Lopian 29 March 2007 @ 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.
3 Eduardo Miranda 29 March 2007 @ 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
4 Eli Lopian 29 March 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Thanks. I’ll try to translate it (BabelFish)
Leave a Reply