[is0tope]

I've always favored exploration before implementation [1]. For me TDD has immense benefit when adding something well defined, or when fixing bugs. When it comes to building something from scratch i found it to get in the way of the iterative design process.

I would however be more amenable to e.g. Prototyping first, and then using that as a guide for TDD. Not sure if there is a name for that approach though. "spike" maybe?

[1] https://www.machow.ski/posts/galls-law-and-prototype-driven-...

[tra3]

I find that past a certain size, even exploratory code base benefits from having tests. Otherwise, as I'm hacking, I end up breaking existing functionality. Then I spend more time debugging trying to figure out what changed.. what's your experience when it comes to more than a few hundred lines of code?

[is0tope]

Indeed, but once you start getting to that point I'd argue you are starting to get beyond a prototype. But you raise a good point, id say if the intention is to throw the code away (which you probably should) then if add as few tests as will allow you to make progress.