It is a nice debate.

I posit that if the skill is high enough, it is easier to TDD than not to,
so requires less commitment.

Knowing how is the first step on the skill acquisition ladder. :P

Personally I now find it worth even retro-fitting tests to be able to work
effectively with "legacy" code. And sometimes I find the problem too hard
to test and go forth into the mystery untested because I can't justify
figuring out how to test it at that point.
On 16 Oct 2013 7:58 AM, "David Fraser" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In scientific-training-in-undergrad-compsci.rst:
>
> >  and has positive effects on the design of code, and the understanding of what coding is.
> >
> > -While we do not all practice TDD universally, we feel that the experience of developing
> > -that TDD gives can transform individuals understanding of testing and the role that it
> > -plays in development.
> > +TDD is a hard skill to acquire, requiring deliberate practice.
> > +This sort of practice is well-suited to the learning environment of a university course/practical.
> > +
> > +While we do not all practice TDD universally (largely due to lack of skill acquisition),
>
> Hmmm ... the reason may be debatable here. I do know how to do TDD, so
> some of this is about level of commitment to it :) I plan to merge this and
> adjust it, feel free to propose further adjustments
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/davidfraser/scientific-compsci-undergrad/pull/1/files#r6992935>
> .
>