What one person calls carelessness, another would say freeing up the time to consider other things. Such as, the code actually doing what it needs to. We are limited beings and can only keep so much in our heads at one time. If I have to remember how everything works at some level and then want to tackle how to clean it up (refactoring) or add something new without breaking it, that is a tremendous amount of state I am managing in my brain.
Better to write tests to assert something works as expected. Then focus on what you actually want to do, finally returning to your tests and focusing on your changes impact.
If people are writing shitty tests, that is a different problem.
As to your second point, I am fearful of code that does not have tests. I do not know what it does, I have next to no confidence that it does what it is supposed to and no way to validate that I haven't broken it if I change it.
I find the whole pushback for tests automation very odd. Here we are working towards automating some business process, while manually testing that it works. Why wouldn't we automate the testing too? If you are not good enough to automate most of your testing, what business do you have automating something else?
Better to write tests to assert something works as expected. Then focus on what you actually want to do, finally returning to your tests and focusing on your changes impact.
If people are writing shitty tests, that is a different problem.
As to your second point, I am fearful of code that does not have tests. I do not know what it does, I have next to no confidence that it does what it is supposed to and no way to validate that I haven't broken it if I change it.
I find the whole pushback for tests automation very odd. Here we are working towards automating some business process, while manually testing that it works. Why wouldn't we automate the testing too? If you are not good enough to automate most of your testing, what business do you have automating something else?