Comments on: Innovation in Practice? http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/ Creating better software Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:27:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Eli Lopian http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-304 Eli Lopian Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:55:33 +0000 http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/#comment-304 Thanks. I'll try to translate it (BabelFish) Thanks. I’ll try to translate it (BabelFish)

]]> By: Eduardo Miranda http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-303 Eduardo Miranda Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:35:59 +0000 http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/#comment-303 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 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

]]> By: Eli Lopian http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-300 Eli Lopian Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:41:10 +0000 http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/#comment-300 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 <strong><em>Legacy code</em></strong> 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 <em><strong>Untestable Code</strong></em>, but it is no good because with typemock the code is testable. 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.

]]> By: Eduardo Miranda http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-291 Eduardo Miranda Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:20:04 +0000 http://www.elilopian.com/2007/03/25/innovation-in-practice/#comment-291 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. 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.

]]>