tl;dr Work towards more production-like feedback sooner Engineers make stuff. Considerable thought goes into the stuff we make: designs, prototypes, focus groups, early testers, analytics, A/B tests. Engineers make something else, though, something that gets less thought. We make the making of stuff. There is no one right way to make something, which means someone has to decide how to make it. Making making is the decision(s) about how to make something.

This is a highly sarcastic post by Kent Beck about the death of TDD. Enjoy! RIP TDD by Kent Beck – April 29, 2014 at 9:10am DHH has consigned TDD to the scrapheap of history. I'm sad, not because I rescued it from the scrapheap of history in the first place, but because now I need to hire new techniques to help me solve many of my problems during programming:

Prior issues have focused on some very old philosophies. Here is a brand new one: From the Reactive Manifesto by Jonas Bonér Reactive Systems are: Responsive: The system responds in a timely manner if at all possible. Responsiveness is the cornerstone of usability and utility, but more than that, responsiveness means that problems may be detected quickly and dealt with effectively. Responsive systems focus on providing rapid and consistent response times, establishing reliable upper bounds so they deliver a consistent quality of service.

XP teams prefer simple solutions where possible. Here are four criteria used to evaluate the simplicity of a design: Appropriate for the intended audience.It doesn't matter how brilliant and elegant a piece of design is; if the people who need to work with it don't understand it, it isn't simple for them. Communicative. Every idea that needs to be communicated is represented in the system. Like words in a vocabulary, the elements of the system communicate to future readers.