Since moving to the infrastructure team at Slide I've found the rate at which my software gets deployed has plummeted, while the quantity of the code that I am deploying to the live site has sky-rocketed. When on an applications-team within Slide, code is typically pushed in small incrememnts a few days a week, if not daily. This allows for really exciting compact milestones that make more fine-grained analysis achievable, post-push for product management and metrics purposes. On the infrastructure team however, the requirements are wholly different, the "fail-fast, ship-now" mentality that prevails when doing user-facing web application development just does not work in infrastructure. The most important aspects of building out infrastructure components are stability and usability, our "customers" are the rest of engineering, and that has a definite effect on your workflow.
One of the things that @jasonrubenstein and I always did when we worked together, was occasional code review. In the majority of cases, our "code review" sessions were more or less rubber duck debugging, but occasionally it would escalate into more complex discussions about the "right way" to do something. When you're writing infrastructure software for services that are handling tens of millions of users the notion of "code review" goes from being optional to being absolutely required. Discussions are had on the correctness or performance characteristics of database indexes, the necessity of some objects instantiating default values of attributes or having them lazily load, or debating garbage collection of objects while meticulously watching memory consumption.
For one of my most recent projects, I was working on something in C, a rarity at Slide since we work with managed code in Python the majority of the time. As the project neared completion, I counted roughly two or three hours of code review time dedicated by our Chief Architect. The attention to detail paid to this code was extremely high, as the service was going to be handling millions of requests from other levels of the Slide infrastructure, before getting cycled or restarted.
A particularly frustrating aspect of code review by your peers is that a second set of eyes not only will find problems with your code, but will likely mean refactoring or bug fixes, more work. In my case, whenever a bug or stability issue was discovered, a test needed to be written for it to make sure the bug did not present itself again, the workload would be larger than if I had just fixed the bug and moved on with my life.
If you expect to write an API, have it stablize, and then be used, you must write test cases for it. I'm not a TDD "nut", I actually hate writing test cases, I absolutely abhor it. Writing test cases is responsible and the adult thing to do. In my experience, it can also be tedious and usually comes as a result of finding flaws in my own software. The majority of tests that I find myself writing are admissions of defeat, admitting that I don't crap roses and by george, my code isn't perfect either.
On the flipside however, I hate debugging even more. Stepping through a call stack is on par with waterboarding in my book, torture. Which means I'm more than willing to tolerate writing tests so long as it means I can be certain I will be cutting down on the time spent being tortured with either pdb or gdb. In almost every situation where I've written tests properly, like the responsible developer that I am, I find them saving me at some point. It might be getting late, or I'm just feeling a little cavalier, but tests failing almost always indicates that I've screwed something up I shouldn't have.
Additionally, now that the majority of my projects are infrastructure-level projects, the tests I write serve a second "undocumented" purpose, they provide ready-made examples for other developers on how to use my code. Bonus!
The more and more code I write, the more amazed I am at the pushback against testing in general, there exists decent libraries for every language imaginable (well, perhaps BrainfuckUnit doesn't exist), and its sole purpose (in my opinion) is to save develpoment time, particularly when coupled with a good continuous integration server. Further to that effect, if you're building services for other developers to use, and you're not writing tests for it, you're not only wasting your time and your employer's money, but the time of your users as well (read: stop being a jerk).
Sure there are a lot of articles/books/etc about writing stable code, but in my opinion, solid code review and testing will stablize your code far more than any design pattern ever will.