> the zealotry of some of its evangelists who insist that TDD is some kind of moral imperative and is the only "correct" way of developing software and anyone who doesn't follow that path or make respectful obeisance to it is "unprofessional","dodgy" etc.
Well, it is (the only correct way of developing software). If you're writing software without a test, even if only a mental one, you're just goofing off. And if it is mental, write it down and let the computer check it for you.
It's like not writing specs. (Not necessarily the executable type.) If you don't know what you're trying to do how do you know when you're done?
As for what people who confuse specs with acceptance tests think, I wouldn't judge a product/methodology by those who don't use it well.
Well, it is (the only correct way of developing software). If you're writing software without a test, even if only a mental one, you're just goofing off. And if it is mental, write it down and let the computer check it for you.
It's like not writing specs. (Not necessarily the executable type.) If you don't know what you're trying to do how do you know when you're done?
As for what people who confuse specs with acceptance tests think, I wouldn't judge a product/methodology by those who don't use it well.