[at612]

For me, the takeaway from that article is this:

> Different people will have different testing strategies based on this philosophy, but that seems reasonable to me given the immature state of understanding of how tests can best fit into the inner loop of coding. Ten or twenty years from now we’ll likely have a more universal theory of which tests to write, which tests not to write, and how to tell the difference. In the meantime, experimentation seems in order.

Indeed, we still "don't know" how to test—more generally, and given the abundance of methodologies and their tendency to go through a hype and dump cycle, I would say we still "don't know" how to write code in the first place.

We'll get there eventually, but for now I would take whichever approach, methodology, tools, and language that I use as having a "best before" date, and invest in it accordingly.