[lucisferre]

So what dimensions do you propose to care about? Do the dimensions I mention not matter at all? If they do matter then I think there is still a point here.

You are engaging in a strawman. I don't claim anywhere that these are the only dimensions to care about, I simply claim that these are some things we've noted that testing leads to improvements.

Ultimately though my primary claim is simply that I see less value in opinions vs evidence.

[newgame]

Fair enough.

Though I'd like to think that I presented clear arguments even though I didn't present _empirical_ evidence for my arguments. I presented ideas and logical steps how to arrive at them. Which, to me, makes it more than "just an opinion". Sure, you may disagree with the ideas and or the steps–it's not a mathematical proof, it's much softer. Sidenote: Nonetheless, I provided two links to empirical research finding counterintuitive results from TDD and from unit tests.

Clarification: I am not engaging in a strawman. I didn't claim that _you_ said these are the only dimensions. I tried to express, generally, that software quality is one of several important dimensions. I could have phrased it in a clearer way.

[lucisferre]

> Software quality can be measured in different ways. Software quality is not the only dimension to care about when developing products

This statement is an implied counter argument. If not then what is it? If so, then I suggest it is a strawman as I never argued against that.

> I'd like to think that I presented clear arguments

If you are referring to the original article I was not aware you were the author, so my response above simple responded to your statement in context and not the article as a whole. I'll do so below.

I don't argue that the article presents it's arguments clearly, though I don't necessarily agree with them. Actually, my main issue is with the rhetorical style it is presents it in.

It tries to hard to sell less testing as a solution to testing pain, rather than exposing it as a possible idea to be discussed. Using mostly a combination of appeals to authority and association with the term "lean" as rhetorical devices. This, to me, smells like the last generation "Agile" snake oil.

On separate level I do disagree with presenting logical reasoning as a counter argument to empirical evidence. Logical reasoning may be a compelling reason to seek empirical evidence through trial and experimentation, but reasoning alone can't invalidate evidence. With that said, I do believe some other commenters here mentioned that there is evidence on both sides of this debate, so I won't say your idea's are not worth exploring, though they definitely contradict my own experiences with testing.