On the other hand, I worked for a company that seemed to follow Stack Overflow's article (sparse tests, unmockable static fields) that made everything a nightmare and slowed velocity almost to a halt, and provided a brittle customer experience.
I can quite believe that caching SQL results saved time (hardly not a "best practice"). The waters become murkier when you say you can't afford basic abstractions to make things testable.
They provide no statistics on how much time their "optimisations" actually saved. Likely, their optimisations wouldn't have made a difference, as they would have been JIT'd away anyway.
I am very much opinion that if you're writing code without some sort of test, you're writing legacy code.
I can quite believe that caching SQL results saved time (hardly not a "best practice"). The waters become murkier when you say you can't afford basic abstractions to make things testable.
They provide no statistics on how much time their "optimisations" actually saved. Likely, their optimisations wouldn't have made a difference, as they would have been JIT'd away anyway.
I am very much opinion that if you're writing code without some sort of test, you're writing legacy code.