I have a question regarding productivity, and it goes like this:
Time difference between developing with unit tests vs no tests
I'm a solo developer with a pretty time-constrained work environment where development time ranges usually from 1-4 weeks per project, depending on either requirements, urgency, or both. At any given time I handle around 3-4 projects, some having timelines that overlap with each other.
Expectedly, code quality suffers. A considerable amount of bugs escape to production, which I have to fix and in turn sets back my other projects.
This is where unit testing comes in. When done right, it should keep bugs, let alone those that escape to production, to a minimum. On the other hand, writing tests can take a considerable amount of time, which doesn't sound good with time-constrained projects such as mine.
Question is, how much of a time difference would writing unit-tested code over untested code, and if possible, how does that time difference scale as project scope widens?
As it is now, I suspect that this would be put off as subjective because it differs from person to person - someone can write unit-tested code as quick as someone else can do the same code but without tests. How can I improve this question so that it doesn't read as such?