Corrupted is not the right way to describe it. Both TDD and agile provide something amazing to management: a way to make the black hole called "software engineering" into something tangible and quantifiable. This ofcourse also makes it possible to execute some bad management practices on software engineering as well. People like to complain about agile (and apparently TDD) but I would argue that there are also huge success stories that don't make it to HN.
Let's keep in mind this Fowler post has no science in it. It's just some "lauded practitioners'" view of TDD. Our industry is driven by this kind of discourse. There's very little good scientific research to answer questions like these in software in general. How much is any good on TDD? One paper? Two?
Replying to myself (facepalm): just to make sure people know what I think. I've been doing TDD since 2002. I'm of the "You will take this out of my cold, dead hands" variety on the usefulness of TDD. That doesn't mean that there's any science that proves it.
