Hacker News Reader

Code is legacy the moment it's checked in - not writing tests is the equivalent of expecting the game of telephone to go flawlessly always and forever for every corner and major case written... This type of optimism when looked up in the OED has one definition: nope

View on HN

That is why I like Michael Feathers' definition of legacy code, which is (paraphrasing):

> Legacy code is code not under test

That said, I'm not against the existence of legacy code, but any bugs damn well should be written up as tests to catch regressions.

That way new development can be done without tests (full TDD is tedious and often way too coupled to implementation imo) but any bugs are captured in a way that can't be tests written against the implementation and guard against regression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com