Against Testing
For Testing:<p>1. Tests aren&#x27;t necessarily for you, they could be to convince somebody else that your solution is robust enough to be used for their use-cases.<p>2. Test&#x27;s aren&#x27;t necessarily for today. They could be about preventing code regression in the future (some dev comes in and makes &quot;performance&quot; changes for example, not realizing they are breaking the code for others).<p>3. They can be about testing that the code behaves how you believe it behaves. Sometimes even simple code requires a sanity check.<p>4. 100% test coverage is likely impossible, but if we do find errors, we can learn from them and try to prevent them happening in the future by adding them to the tests.<p>5. Tests breaking are a good thing. They inform you that some change you are making is changing the behavior of something you thought to be act reliably.<p>6. With regards to the same mind making the tests, this could also be a useful tool for ensuring a developer of some code thought of most the edge cases when merging some code. &quot;Ah, i see you didn&#x27;t add minus numbers to the tests, how are those handled?&quot;<p>7. We should be able to freely rip out tests and add testing as the requirements of the code base change. Generally though, the goal of much code doesn&#x27;t really change, despite perhaps how exactly it achieves the task does.