I obviously didn't make myself understandable. The point is that you write the test, write the code that passes the test, then that piece of code is done until the spec changes (or you refactor). You shouldn't have code that didn't have a test on it so that you write another test and find yourself having to fix code.
The point is that while you might have written tests before code, you wrote code that wasn't tested until you wrote the test for it. I think your idea of "no non-sense code" is unreasonable. About half the code I write between runs is what I think you would consider "non-sense" code. A lot of time, I will have code that I know is wrong because I haven't written the test that demonstrates its "wrong"-ness. Until I write the test that demonstrates what's wrong, forcing me to refactor, I don't refactor. Otherwise, I would have written code before that code's test, which means I'm not doing TDD anymore.
Now, I don't ship code in that state (though I do check it in). The test suite doesn't fully implement the spec, so the feature isn't done. But, you literally write the minimalist and simplest code that will work. Unoptimized, unvalidating code. Crappy CS101 code. You'll write the tests that expose the weaknesses, forcing the refactor to correct code. But, only with tests.
My criteria for good software:
- Does it work?
- Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?