I have to admit I've always been puzzled by the opposition to TDD. I don't see it as a novice thing, or a dogmatic thing. Yet many in this community see it as such, so I'm wondering what they're seeing that I'm not.
To me, the fundamental benefit of TDD is that it proves that the code is in the state I think it's in before I make a change, and it proves that the change I made did what I expect. I'm not aware of any other technique that does that. And I find that to be compelling enough to use the technique routinely.
It seems to me the article author's basic point is that TDD alone isn't sufficient to prove all the requirements are met. I agree with that, but I also don't think that's sufficient to dismiss the practice.
To me, the fundamental benefit of TDD is that it proves that the code is in the state I think it's in before I make a change, and it proves that the change I made did what I expect. I'm not aware of any other technique that does that. And I find that to be compelling enough to use the technique routinely.
It seems to me the article author's basic point is that TDD alone isn't sufficient to prove all the requirements are met. I agree with that, but I also don't think that's sufficient to dismiss the practice.