So all the developers on our team recently got copies of Visual Studio 2005. (Year-end and leftover budget: two great things that go great together.)
The question came up of which edition to get: Architect, Developer, or Tester. The person on our end said, “Get Tester for all the QA people, and Architect for all the developers.” Sounded reasonable to me: in every development environment I’ve ever used, Architect is the edition with all the goodies.
Well, apparently not so with Microsoft these days, as I found when I tried to write some unit tests, using the new unit-testing framework that’s supposed to ship as part of Visual Studio 2005’s Team System thingy, and then did some research to find out why I couldn’t.
Apparently, Microsoft has decided that architects don’t write code. Oh heavens no. Architects don’t need tools for unit testing, or profiling, or code coverage, or static analysis. Apparently, architects just bring the specs down from the mountain, and then goof off until the next release.
In my world, the term “architect” does not mean “doesn’t sully their hands with code”. I can sorta see an architect not needing profiling and code coverage, if they’re on a team of, say, five hundred or more. But an architect would still need unit testing tools because the tests are part of the spec. The spec isn’t complete without acceptance tests that say, “The feature isn’t done until this test passes.”
Complete specs, it appears, are not a concern at Microsoft.