TDD in education, they're doing it wrong

TDD in education, they're doing it wrong

Eric Smith

April 09, 2010

This blog post originally appeared on a blog I maintain for my current game development class. Generally speaking my posts over there are pretty specific to the classes I’m taking, and aren’t appropriate for this blog.

Recently however my instructor, who is an extremely smart and accomplished developer in the game development industry, described a common misconception about TDD that prompted me to rant on that blog. Since the subject is TDD I’m placing it here, edited to make more sense.

Recently in class our professor said something like this, “TDD says you should only write the simplest code that can possibly pass the test, and that leads to spaghetti code with a lof conditional logic.” Sadly this left me shaking my head.

I’ve been doing TDD every single day for the last 3 years professionally, and intermittently for 2 years before that, and I can say for certain that TDD never caused me to write spaghetti code.

Of course I’ve written spaghetti code, including some of the code I TDD’d for the previous class (I’m not real happy with my memory system) but that wasn’t caused by TDD.

The crux of the professor’s argument seems to come from a mistaken understanding of TDD. He seems to have TDD as a three step process:

  • Write the test
  • Write the smallest amount of code to make the test pass
  • Repeat

Unfortunately it’s missing a crucial step – refactor! Yes we initially write the simplest code that can possibly pass, but we don’t leave it that way. We write that simple code so we can refactor with a green bar, something that unfortunately my professor doesn’t understand.

When I write the minimal amount of code refactoring becomes easier, because I have a suite of passing tests. In school students and teachers throw around the term refactoring a lot, but are usually unaware that when Martin Fowler wrote the book on Refactoring, defining it for the software development community, he required unit tests.

You can’t guarantee your behavior did not change unless you have tests around the behavior, which is why I hear so many students say things like “I’m almost done refactoring but the code doesn’t build yet.”

Refactoring is meant to be small steps, in a definite process, so that at the end of each refactoring (such as extract method) I have the same behavior as before, but better code.

Most people who refactor don’t have tests, take huge steps and eventually end up hacking and slashing something back together that is close to (but not the same) as their original behavior. That’s not refactoring, that’s hacking - and most students clearly don’t know the difference.

At this point the blog went into a description of how you’re supposed to do TDD, but if you’re reading this blog you probably already know how to do that. The point of moving this here is to point out that TDD is making inroads at the university level, but it has a long way to go.

Those doing TDD are a distinct minority, those that are are doing it wrong, and they’re getting bad information. Furthermore let’s remember these are smart people.

The professor for my class is frakking brilliant, and the students are amongst the best in the university, and yet in spite of that when they start their first job they’ll do so without writing unit tests.

The good news is that smart people are trying out TDD, in an industry (games) that is notoriously slow to adopt software development methodologies, so we are winning. It’s just taking longer than we thought.

Eric Smith

Principal Crafter

Eric Smith is a fan of the Chicago Bears, Chicago Cubs, and Bruce Springsteen; and he’s the recent author of Game Development with Rust and WebAssembly, published by Packt. Eric is a consummate polyglot, with more than a decade of experience leading development teams and delivering software for global enterprise systems. He has also delivered native Android and iOS apps at every stage of their lifecycle.