One of the things that gets me particularly hot and bothered under the collar is when people who should know better stand up and claim something as objective truth (I’m going to limit myself to software engineering here, but you can probably infer the rest), when it’s clearly a matter of opinion and circumstance.
Many pundits proselytize agile this way.
For example, people say things like “you should be aiming for 90% test coverage”, and round the room people nod sagely and take notes in their little pads, whilst I’m screaming into my head and fighting the urge to tackle the speaker to the floor and finish him off there and then.
No. There is No One Size Fits All.
It’s kinda the software equivalent of the cover shot, the airbrushed reality held up for us all to feel inadequate against. You’re not doing TDD, therefore you are stupid. You’re not using IOC so your project will fail. And yes, your bum does look big in that form-bound-to-tableAdapter.
Give me a break.
Don’t get me wrong: I like unit tests as much as the next man. That is, unless the next man is a rabid evangelical fanatic, feverishly copulating over a copy of Extreme Programming Explained. Test have a vital role in controlling quality, costs and regressions. But their value lies in helping you achieve your goals: they have no intrinsic worth in of themselves. And they are just one tool in the toolbox, whose relative value on a project is entirely contextual based on the team, the requirements, the business landscape and the technologies.
So the answer, as always is ‘it depends’. And this should always be your talisman for detecting shysters everywhere. If someone deviates from this pattern:
Q: (insert important question here)
A: It depends
…then you know they are either lying, or don’t know. If the question is worth asking, this should be the answer.
If you’re actually giving the answer you probably want to give a bit more than just a literal ‘it depends’ answer, otherwise you still look like you don’t know. You want to couch your answer in terms of various options, and the parameters within which each option becomes viable. But the answer is always ultimately a question for the asker, because there is no truth and all things are relative and beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so on.
So for example the level of automated unit testing on your team should consider things like whether any of your team have written any tests before; the opportunity cost (quality vs. time-to-market); the relative ratios of manual testing vs. developer costs; and especially the amenability of your tech stack to automated testing.
It’s a common - but facile - argument to suggest hard-to-test is somehow the fault of your design, when you may have to work with products like BizTalk, SharePoint, Analysis Services, Reporting Services, Integration Services and – hey – we might even have some legacy code in here too. Do these somehow not count, because in my experience this is where many (if not most) of the problems actually lie.
Similarly, many pundits have taken the ‘people over practices’ mantra to mean ‘hire only the top n%’ (where n is < 10), whereas on your team you need to consider the local market, your costing structure and your growth model. Clearly, not everyone can hire above the average, so how do you scale?
And sorry Dr Neil, but bugs are a fact of life. Nothing else in this world is perfect, why should software be any different? Everything has limits, some designed, some unforseen, but always there is a choice: fix it, or do something else. And that’s a business cost/benefit decision, not a religious tenet: is it worth the cost of fixing? If you are sending people to the moon, or running nuclear power stations you look at things very differently than if you’re running a two week online clickthro campaign for Cialis. Get over it. Bugs are risks, and there is more than one way of managing risk. Remember product recall cost appraisals? Fight Club? Oh well.
Ultimately there is only what works for you, on your project, for your client. Everything else is at best constructive criticism, at worst (more common) a fatal distraction.
There is No One Size Fits All
See also: Atwood and Spolski’s Podcast 38
 Though of course in either of those cases you wouldn’t be violating the EULA by using the CLR, or – I suspect – reading this blog anyway.
 You’re kidding right? Look it up