The article is very interesting/good, but I do want to mention one issue I have with it:
“To say that there’s a large amount of literature on the benefits of this approach would be an understatement.”
I've brought this up before, but “literature” carries the connotation of “scientific literature”, and I actually haven't heard of many rigorous, well-constructed scientific experiments that have produced conclusive scientific literature that indicates the benefits of TDD. There's certainly a lot of anecdotal posts and writings, but there seems to be relatively little actual “literature” in the most commonly used sense.
Not saying TDD is bad, of course… Just wondering if this is in fact an overstatement rather than an understatement. If we're going to appeal to authority, we should make sure that authority is valid :)
I don't understand how anyone can develop software with myriad moving pieces without isolating and testing each component as it is written. It's like trying to figure out why your car won't start by sitting in the driver's seat and pushing buttons. I wouldn't ever presume to tell someone else how to do their job, but I can't imagine doing it any other way. (I prefer to write out my spec in BDD style, and unit test when the logic gets hairy).