Once you have the revenue / funding and the paying customers then having TDD with thousands of tests makes a lot more sense.
I'm very hesitant to use an agent to completely generate lots tests unless you clearly know what to test for. Otherwise I write them myself.
pards•1h ago
> it (TDD) makes you feel like a good programmer even if none of it necessarily contributes to the results your team is supposed to achieve.
It also, in my experience, often makes refactoring difficult because the implementation is set in stone, not the behaviour. I know the TDDers say this is because the tests are bad but, like agile, very few people seem to be able to "do it right".
> All of the really hard problems are not solved by TDD.
I've never seen TDD iterate towards good architecture. It optimizes for testable logic.
> A coding agent permits one to feel as if they have the raw productive power a great programmer can tap into. [...] Those cathedrals are not the great works they appear to be. The construction is shoddy and the architecture nonsensical
In other words, AI allows junior/mediocre devs to _feel_ experienced and produce naive implementations much faster, burying the experienced devs in the drudgery of code reviews and defect triage.