Comments on: Rock Scissors Paper: TDD as if you meant it http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it/ Thoughts on Software Development Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:17:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TDD as if you Meant It « cumulativehypotheses http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it/comment-page-1/#comment-125389 TDD as if you Meant It « cumulativehypotheses Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:30:44 +0000 http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/?p=1574#comment-125389 [...] as the target) in a code Dojo over two weeks, with various observation in week 1 and week 2 and as a more extended exercise [...] [...] as the target) in a code Dojo over two weeks, with various observation in week 1 and week 2 and as a more extended exercise [...]

]]> By: Mercurial: Early thoughts at Mark Needham http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it/comment-page-1/#comment-34965 Mercurial: Early thoughts at Mark Needham Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:44:09 +0000 http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/?p=1574#comment-34965 [...] It actually makes development more fun and reminds me of a kata I did while checking in almost every minute last year. [...] [...] It actually makes development more fun and reminds me of a kata I did while checking in almost every minute last year. [...]

]]> By: Johan Martinsson http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it/comment-page-1/#comment-33638 Johan Martinsson Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:38:45 +0000 http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/?p=1574#comment-33638 Thank you for the very detailed git history, I'll definately try that out! I read it through to understand how you made stateful objects come to life. Having tried the exercise on the tic tac toe problem for a little longer than a dojo I sure ended up with little and rather clean code. However in trying to follow the rules I found it difficult to have domain concepts emerge and my code ended up not even remotely object oriented with several missing concepts like, a player and fields taken by a player. And perhaps a field object ( http://github.com/martinsson/cara-dojos/blob/master/ticTacToe/src/main/java/ticTacToe/Game.java ). I think this is mainly because I didn't understand how (following Keith's rules) objects with state come to life. In your example you quickly remove parameters in functions by moving them to the constructor. For instance in your step "Introduce battle class" : "969fe92f4ec2294c095ad8111cc442f87d25afa0" and the following commit what you actually did was extract BattleHasWinner(rock, rock) to the all new Battle class then moved the two arguments to the constructor? Any thoughts on that? Did it work you nicely or would you do it differently a second time? Would you do it differently if you were programming in a more functional language ( I'm thinking of your discussion with Keith Braithwite http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference) Thank you for the very detailed git history, I’ll definately try that out! I read it through to understand how you made stateful objects come to life. Having tried the exercise on the tic tac toe problem for a little longer than a dojo I sure ended up with little and rather clean code. However in trying to follow the rules I found it difficult to have domain concepts emerge and my code ended up not even remotely object oriented with several missing concepts like, a player and fields taken by a player. And perhaps a field object ( http://github.com/martinsson/cara-dojos/blob/master/ticTacToe/src/main/java/ticTacToe/Game.java ). I think this is mainly because I didn’t understand how (following Keith’s rules) objects with state come to life.

In your example you quickly remove parameters in functions by moving them to the constructor. For instance in your step “Introduce battle class” : “969fe92f4ec2294c095ad8111cc442f87d25afa0″ and the following commit what you actually did was extract BattleHasWinner(rock, rock) to the all new Battle class then moved the two arguments to the constructor? Any thoughts on that? Did it work you nicely or would you do it differently a second time? Would you do it differently if you were programming in a more functional language ( I’m thinking of your discussion with Keith Braithwite http://gojko.net/2009/02/27/thought-provoking-tdd-exercise-at-the-software-craftsmanship-conference)

]]> By: Twitter Trackbacks for Rock Scissors Paper: TDD as if you meant it at Mark Needham [markhneedham.com] on Topsy.com http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it/comment-page-1/#comment-21718 Twitter Trackbacks for Rock Scissors Paper: TDD as if you meant it at Mark Needham [markhneedham.com] on Topsy.com Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:43:16 +0000 http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/?p=1574#comment-21718 [...] Rock Scissors Paper: TDD as if you meant it at Mark Needham www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it – view page – cached Thoughts on Software Development — From the page [...] [...] Rock Scissors Paper: TDD as if you meant it at Mark Needham http://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2009/08/24/rock-scissors-paper-tdd-as-if-you-meant-it – view page – cached Thoughts on Software Development — From the page [...]

]]>