[cjbgkagh]

It sounds like your definition of TDD is regression tests + user acceptance test and I've already agreed that those are good things, we seem to just disagree that is TDD is generally practiced in this manner - though you've only given me your personal anecdote. I made a generalization based on an observed pattern of behavior at a rather large scale, I will assume that you do TDD as is intended, but I already assumed individual counters to my generalization existed so your anecdote has changed nothing. The question remains, does the generalization hold for the general case. Like the USSR made a valiant effort to achieve true socialism Microsoft made a valiant effort to implement true TDD before giving up in 2014.

[pydry]

The definition is you write or amend a test before making the code change that makes it pass.

That's it. It says nothing about the type of test you write. Personally i do it with literally every type of test that i write - acceptance, integration, unit.

If you write a decent test, yes, TDD is always valuable. If you TDD with shitty tests, not so much, but that isnt really an issue with TDD.

[cjbgkagh]

Sounds like a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

[Dylan16807]

It's not. "Doing C before doing Y is beneficial but requires you to be competent at C." is not a no true Scotsman.