If we write tests, we'll be slower ...

Is that objectively true? For any piece of code that you write, you'll need to test it.

If not through automated tests, you'll need to follow a protocol of manual testing to go through all code paths.

This manual testing can add up. Let's say you are actively developing a feature.

You'll need to test it out often.

The second part of when I hear testing will slow us down is the illusion that you can be faster without writing tests.

You may deploy quicker, but it will require many iterations to iron out all the bugs.

When you look not at when the feature first appeared but when it was first stable, it would have probably been faster to start with a test-first approach.

The thing is, someone always gets to test.

If it's not your automated tests, it's you. If it's not you, it's the QA. If it's not the QA, it's the CEO. If it's not the CEO, it's your users.

It just gets more expensive any time you hand your responsibilities further down the line.

Don't treat your users as quality assurance. Test your code properly.

Yours,

Taj