Continuous Delivery Quotes

...a suite of tests is run, optimized to execute very quickly. We refer to this suite of tests as commit stage tests rather than unit tests, it is useful to include a small selection of tests of other types at this stage...
Begin the design of your commit test suite by running all unit tests. Later, as you learn more about what types of failure are common in acceptance test runs ... you should add specific tests to your commit test suite to try and find them early on.

Acceptance tests written without developer involvement also tend to be tightly coupled to the UI and thus brittle and badly factored, because the testers don't have any insight into the UI's underlying design and lack the skills to create abstraction layers or run acceptance tests against a public API. 

- Continuous Delivery
- Jez Humble, 2011

The "Ultimate Configurability" Antipattern

The desire to achieve flexibility may lead to the common antipattern of "ultimate configurability" which is, all too frequently, stated as a requirement for software projects. It is at best unhelpful, and at worst, this one requirement can kill a project.

Continuous Delivery - Addison-Wesley 2012 p. 40

Closures vs Lambdas

Where closures go beyond lambdas is that they bind or "close over" variables that are not explicitly defined in the closure's scope.

http://dublintech.blogspot.com/2014/05/groovy-closures-this-owner-delegate.html

Use lots of small simple classes instead of big complex classes

Favor complex network of simple objects over a simple network of complex objects

http://stackoverflow.com/a/2947823

That's one more voice in favor of the "tiny pieces" method of breaking down applications.

When to use 'new'

Now, this isn't to say that you can never use new manually -- but you should reserve that for value-type objects that don't have external dependencies. (And in those cases, I'd argue that you're often better off with a static factory method than a public constructor anyway, but that's beside the point.)

http://stackoverflow.com/a/28749192

Why not to use PowerMock

In my opionion [sic], creating a new collaborating service is not bad primarily because it's untestable, but because it introduces coupling and undermines polymorphism, and similarly for the static invocations of the Database class. 

 http://blog.xebia.com/mocking-the-unmockable-too-much-of-a-good-thing/

So "testability" has always been more than just whether a class is literally testable in terms of lack of technical limitations. Author seems to suggest "testability" has really been a proxy argument for good OOP design.

Having realized this, I now understand what Misko Hevery meant when he said the following (unfortunately without elaborating):

 Yes I am aware of them, and I think it is a bad idea. You are trying to compensate bad design with Monkey Patching.

http://misko.hevery.com/2008/12/15/static-methods-are-death-to-testability/

APIs should be impossible to misuse

It should hard or impossible to misuse a good API

Josh Block
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAb7hSCtvGw

The above statement validates my preference for using the Builder Pattern to facilitate clients to provide named constructor arguments in a sense. E.g. if a constructor has several string parameters, rather than rely on flaky javadocs and parameter names to inform the user what to provide, I would prefer to provide builder methods that unambiguously let the user know what to provide. For validation of inputs, I make the null checks, etc, in the private constructor. That makes it about as hard to misuse the API/constructor as possible in Java.