Him: Can't you test for this somehow? Even without TDD...
You: TDD is bad because math and wall of text.
Go read a book and realize why you can't, Web hacker.
Me: You jumped on TDD unnecessarily, there.
You: Now I'm going to redirect the argument to you!
You're browbeating anybody that comments here, rather unnecessarily, almost as a display of expertise.
I'll address the sliver of this comment that is actually relevant to the thread: the distinction between "testing" and "TDD" is not important to the point I'm making.
Reading your original reply, I walk away with these four points from your four paragraphs, now with the knowledge that wherever you typed "TDD" you could mean "testing" as well.
- Testing distributed cryptography is difficult.
- Read a book.
- You're a web developer and don't know the first thing about
testing TLS stacks, clearly.
- Testing does not improve systems security, as evidenced by
Ruby on Rails: Rails uses testing and it's insecure.
Seriously, re-read your comment. More than half of it is just unnecessary and dilutes what little point you've made into something unrecognizable in the snark.
Testing does not improve systems security, as evidenced by Ruby on Rails: Rails uses testing and it's insecure.
This is an important and valuable point. He wasn't discouraging new ideas, but rather pointing out how hard it is to make new ideas practical in the security arena.
