The debate continues...but I still think it would be nice to have Edit and Continue. A Dr. Dobbs article by Richard Grimes says:
I would accept that this is the case when a developer goes into “fire fighting” mode—that is, to try and fix a bug at a client’s site as quickly as possible—but even then I would grumble that if the code had been properly tested, the bug would not have existed. However, when code is being developed in a software house, I see no justification for EnC. My argument is that proper testing during development should be more effective at eliminating bugs.
In a perfect world, yes...everything would be better tested and designed and coded correctly up-front. But until we live in a perfect world, we need good developer productiving features such as E&C and refactoring. For example, as a contractor, I have been hired specifically to go straight into “fire fighting mode!!!“ This is the real world folks, and obviously code isn't perfect the first time through. Otherwise would we need that neat, new refactoring feature in C#??? If code is designed properly the first time, why the need to refactor? Same thing with E&C. It can be abused, or it can be useful. I maintain my position that E&C is a productivity feature and it does not hurt to have the feature despite the grumblings of a few people who don't want it. I am also excited about refactoring. Both would/will be useful to me when the situation calls for them.
