Agree with everything except the unit tests. Not that I'm religiously against them, but there's a time and a place for them. Absence of unit tests doesn't automatically equals bad code, or buggy software. I've seen plenty of code with 90%+ coverage, that was shady as hell. It depends on the type of project/team how much attention I give to unit testing. For example if I'm tasked with writing a ui component library, thats going to be used by a lot of other devs, definitely write unit tests. But if I'm tasked with writing an application that has a clear start and end I put more emphasis on acceptance criteria and testing that those are met.
Currently Chief Developer of Superflows.dev || Write about development, engineering & experiences || Previously CEO of a software consulting firm for 10 years
Yes, fair enough. That essentially means that a full-stack developer needs to be knowledgeable enough so as to understand how to get the best out of unit tests, particularly as the lines of code increase.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Agree with everything except the unit tests. Not that I'm religiously against them, but there's a time and a place for them. Absence of unit tests doesn't automatically equals bad code, or buggy software. I've seen plenty of code with 90%+ coverage, that was shady as hell. It depends on the type of project/team how much attention I give to unit testing. For example if I'm tasked with writing a ui component library, thats going to be used by a lot of other devs, definitely write unit tests. But if I'm tasked with writing an application that has a clear start and end I put more emphasis on acceptance criteria and testing that those are met.
Yes, fair enough. That essentially means that a full-stack developer needs to be knowledgeable enough so as to understand how to get the best out of unit tests, particularly as the lines of code increase.