Dragan Stepanović

If, say, product managers are not able to understand those tests, then I’d say they don’t speak domain enough.

and exponentially increasing the risk of something going wrong as you add more functionality is pretty extreme programming compared to TDD if you ask me.

with async code reviews you’ll often get way less feedback and less ability to build in quality than with continuous code reviews (pair/mob programming), but at least you’ll also choke the flow and delay delivery.

Here’s an interesting phenomenon when it comes to the concept of rework in knowledge work. You can only minimize rework, but you cannot eliminate it. If you try to eliminate it, you’ll maximize it.

because they are confident their code works and “tests slow me down”, and then accumulating cruft and things taking ages to implement because they are scared to change the code because there are no tests.

about the way XP practices improve all four Accelerate metrics.

it gets invited more often, which means it becomes more timely, which means it’s both more likely to be incorporated and that incorporating it is also cheap.

to write that “How to conduct humane code reviews” document, there’s something deeper wrong with a given way of working and its inherent incentive structure than the lack of that document.

and the frequency of running them becomes approximate to not running them at all. Meaning, as if you don’t have them at all.

When it comes to flow, the biggest problem inherent to systems based on async work is that they make the cost of starting new work effectively zero (the other side doesn’t have to be available in order to start new work)