Well ya, I'm just saying I'm surprised considering the current job market. I moved on from Rails about 5 years ago now, but have 9 years experience under my belt and still keep up a bit with new things and play with them once in a while. And yet I've applied for several Rails positions in the past few years and always get an outright rejection.

I'm surprised hiring is tough. The job market is such trash rn and I feel there are a lot of Rubyists, or ex-Rubists interested in returning to it, around. Maybe not? (Edit: spelling)

Yes. TFA author could have gone into it with this mindset and treated the initial work as a prototype with the idea of throwing it away and would have been happier about it.

> but tests make a whole lot more sense when you know what you're building.

It's very true. This is a "gotcha" a lot of anti-TDDers always bring up, and yet some talk about "prototyping == good" without ever making the connection that you can do both.

The truth is in the middle somewhere, regarding tests at least (yes, your microservices story is insane).

I think the author could have been happier with the no-test decision if they had treated the initial work as a prototype with the idea of throwing it away.

At the same time, writing some tests, should not be seen as a waste of time since if you're even at all experienced with it, it's going to be faster than constantly reloading your browser or pressing up-up-up-up-up in a REPL to check progress (if you're doing the latter you are essentially doing a form of sorta reverse TDD).

So I dunno... I may be more in line with the idea that's a bit insane to prevent people from writing tests BUT so many people are so bad at writing tests that ya, for a go-gettem start up it could be the right call.

I certainly agree with your whole cost-benefit analysis paragraph.