[flagged]
That's exactly what this person is railing against. They strictly forbid testing.
And I still feel the original comment doesn't give this point enough weight.
I have an education and experience in software development. If a manager told me to make a product in an unsafe manner, I'd refuse, and if push came to shove, leave.
Leave, both because I wouldn't be able to defend my work as a professional, but also because I wouldn't work under someone who would want to dictate the manner in which I do what I do.
No one is disagreeing that tests are good in a vacuum / mature product. But if your focus is building a mvp, and you’re trading off the test time with other things, it’s not always worth it.
Screw “leadership” but consider for a second that you’re the leadership.
I think the author could have been happier with the no-test decision if they had treated the initial work as a prototype with the idea of throwing it away.
At the same time, writing some tests, should not be seen as a waste of time since if you're even at all experienced with it, it's going to be faster than constantly reloading your browser or pressing up-up-up-up-up in a REPL to check progress (if you're doing the latter you are essentially doing a form of sorta reverse TDD).
So I dunno... I may be more in line with the idea that's a bit insane to prevent people from writing tests BUT so many people are so bad at writing tests that ya, for a go-gettem start up it could be the right call.
I certainly agree with your whole cost-benefit analysis paragraph.
When it stopped being two people he still forbade tests. In this decade. That is fucking nuts.
Fun fact: the guy I worked a 2 man project with and I had a rock solid build cycle, and when we got cancelled to put more wood behind fewer arrows, he and I built the entire CI pipeline. On cruisecontrol. And if you don’t know what that is, that is Stone Age CI. Literal sticks and rocks. Was I ahead of a very big curve? You bet your sweet bippy. But that was more than twenty years ago.
That may have been spectactular naivete but it's not insanity.
The point I keep coming back to here that everyone is fighting me so hard on is that these blanket statements of: NO TESTS IS NUTS... absent of an understanding of the business context... is harmful.
One of the worst ones I ever encountered was learning that someone broke the entire help system three months prior, and nobody noticed. Because developers don’t use the help system. I convinced a team of very skeptical people that E2E testing the help docs was a higher priority than automating testing of the authentication because every developer used that eight times a day or more. In fact on a previous project with trunk based builds, both times I broke login someone came to tell me so before the build finished.
Debugging is about doing cheap tests first to prune the problem space, and slower tests until you find the culprit. Testing often forgets that and will run expensive tests before fast ones. Particularly in the ice cream cone.
In short, if you declare an epic done with zero automation, you’re a fucking idiot.
It's not that I disagree with you essentially - or particularly with respect to your analysis of your specific examples. 100% in the cases you describe. Those sound like beneficial tests. Particularly because your example SPEAKS to the business case - users were using the help docs (I think you mean users anyway). So yeah - that's important.
But I don't know why it's so hard extracting a simple acknowledgement of what I'm pointing out - specifically that the decisions like implementing tests IS a cost-benefit decision dependent on business context.
Funny you mention auth testing though. One time both me and the tech lead broke one of the auth flows in production within the space of a week of one another. Yep - no tests. Feel free to judge us insane. But here's how we thought about it - and when I say "we" that includes the business. First of all the auth flow was not actually used by any active users, so damage was low. Two man dev team. Complexity up until that point had been low, pre-product market fit, sales were dogshit, and cash had been low for some time. Feature shipping was the 110% priority. Ok - but these bugs were a sign complexity had increased beyond what we could manage without some tests. And given the importance of auth, it was now easy to make the case to leadership that implementing an e2e test suite was worth it. So we did.
If you still think a decision making process like that is insane - because we didn't immediately implement tests for every shipped feature. Well - I just think you're wrong.
It’s clear to me that if you don’t know what you’re building, testing it first has rubber duck value that can easily be overshadowed by Sunk Cost. I always test my pillars - the bits of the problem that are definite and which I will build off of.
Yes, starting with tests without market fit can also be fatal. But calling anything done without tests is just a slower poison. Before you airlift your brain to another unrelated problem you need to codify some of your assumptions. If you’re good at testing you can write them in a manner that makes it easy to delete them when requirements change. But that takes practice a lot of people don’t have because they avoid writing tests or they write the exact same kinds of tests for years at a time without every stretching their skills.
If you’re not writing tests you’re not writing good ones when you do. Testing is part of CI and the whole philosophy of CI is do the painful parts until you either grow callouses or get fed up and file off the scratchy bits. To avoid testing is to forget the face of your father.
I think we are pretty close to agreement here. I'd be interested in what you have experienced in the realm of front-end testing though - whether you think things are just as cut and dried in that realm (that's another discussion though).
And I'll also accept the point about skill in test writing that improves the cost-benefit analysis. I'll also cop to not having that kind of practiced ability at testing to the level I would personally like. But it's chicken / egg. A lot of folks get their start at scrappy start ups that can't attract the best talent. And just can't afford to let their devs invest in their skills in this way. Hell - even established companies just grind their devs without letting them learn the shit they need to learn.
I feel a victim of this to some degree - and am combating it with time off work which I can afford at the moment. One of the things I'm working on is just understanding testing better - y'know, so I can in the future write a SKILL.md file that tells Claude what sort of tests it should write. lol...
Every problem is easy if you oversimplify it.
I send people who come to me struggling with their tests away with permission to fail at them but not permission to give up on getting better. You're gonna write broken tests. Just don't keep writing the same broken tests.
If anyone looking for a PhD or book idea is reading along with this, my suspicion is that it's so difficult because we are either 1) fundamentally doing it wrong (in which case there's room for at least 2 more revolutions in testing method) 2) someone will prove mathematically that it's an intractable problem, Gödel-style, and then someone will apply SAT solvers or similar to the problem and call it a day. Property based testing already pretty much does Monte Carlo simulation...
For backend tests, the penalty at each level of the testing pyramid is about 8x cost for a single test (and IME, moving a test down one level takes 5x as many tests for equivalent coverage, so moving a test down 2 layers reduces the CPUtime by half but also allows parallel execution).
For frontend I think that cost is closer to 10x. So you want to push hard as you can to do component testing and extract a Functional Core for unit tests even harder than you do for backend code. Karma is not awesome but is loads better than Selenium, particularly once you have to debug a failing test. I've been on long projects for a minute so I can't really opine on Puppeteer, but Selenium is hot flaky garbage. I wouldn't tolerate more than 100 E2E tests in it, even on a half million line project. Basically a smoke test situation if you use it like that, but you won't have constant red builds on the same eight tests on shuffle.
I want to say we had 47 E2E tests on a project I thought was going swimmingly from a SDLC perspective. But it might have been 65.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3033446 - Linking to this old comment because it links to each of Ron's articles, a discussion about it, and Norvig's version.
Norvig's solution is a work of art. When people ask me for examples of intrinsic versus accidental complexity, his sudoku solver is the best one I have. My only note is that he gives up and goes brute force early. When I first encountered it I had a lot of fun layering other common solving strategies on top of his base without too much extra trouble.
What I did not have fun with is porting it to elixir. That was a long journey to get to a solution I could keep adding stuff too. Immutable data is rough, particularly when you're maintaining 4 distinct views on the same data.
There is no ability here for the cost benefit analysis to change over time. There is only no tests
I'd still push back on your hyperbole though. I don't think the author was insane - and we don't know what the broader business context was when they started growing the team and decided to persist without building out the test architecture at that point. They made a call that dogfooding was going to be enough to catch issues as they grew the team. There are a lot of scenarios where that is going to be true.
One scenario where it wouldn't - the most likely - is that the team isn't actually dogfooding because they personally don't find the product useful. Leadership lambasts them to use the product more... but no one does cause it sucks so much it impacts their own personal productivity.
Even there I wouldn't use the word insane... just poor leadership.
What we really don't need is paragraphs of someone arguing because their own definitions differ slightly from the OP
He edited his reply to me multiple times... which is what made me suspect an edit to the original comment. But whatever, I'm happy to acknowledge his original intent even if he did state it more harshly.
>What we really don't need is paragraphs of someone arguing because their own definitions differ slightly from the OP
This is unnecessary. OP came out with "AUTHOR IS INSANE" even on the most generous of interpretations. Even if we allow for nuance OP is claiming, there is little constructive about his contribution. I feel fine about calling it out.
I got the sense from your reply that some extra clarity would be beneficial.
> This is unnecessary. OP came out with "AUTHOR IS INSANE" even on the most generous of interpretations.
I did not actually call the author insane, I called their decision to explicitly disallow testing insane. It's an insane decision. I am not _literally_ calling the author insane.
If you think this distinction really matters wrt the point I'm trying to make, then it's time for you and I to bug out conversationally. Sometimes two individuals have such different ways of communicating that the pain of exegesis isn't worth the squeeze. No hard feelings. I'm sure 50% responsibility is at least mine, but it's not going to be worth it for either of us figuring out exactly what.
To argue with your actual point: I don't really care about the overall context, actively disallowing tests in a codebase is a _bad decision_. Look how it worked out for them.
> it's time for you and I to bug out conversationally
Fine with me
I did not.
What's insane that people in 2026 still think tests slow you down.
It takes me maybe 40 hours (1 week) of coding to start receiving ROI from writing tests in a greenfield project, and by 80 hours I'm pretty sure I've saved more time from bugs and improved design due to TDD than I've spent writing the tests.
The ROI is even faster if I'm not the only developer on the project.
If your flagship product takes less time to develop than 40 hours, then your product is extremely vulnerable to being copied by another company, so your entire software project is a bad business idea.
So there really aren't many exceptions: either your project benefits from tests, or it's too easy a project to be a business.
So frankly, it's your comment lacking in cost/benefit analysis.