Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I've never quite understood the RSpec crowd's obsession with renaming things, but as a library RSpec kicks the default ruby Test::Unit's arse so comprehensively otherwise.

    Nor do I understand the style that has them use do ... end style blocks to wrap code that, at it's best looks declarative. It's not impossible to write:


    describe SomeClass {
        it "should be instantiable" {
            SomeClass.new.should_not be_nil
        }
    }


    which seems a good deal cleaner. Many ruby progr
    • I've never quite understood the RSpec crowd's obsession with renaming things...

      This is what grates me. It's clear that RSpec is a tremendous boon to Ruby testing. I'm all for that! I just wish that this goodness weren't couched in such tiresome wankery over decades-old concepts repackaged bizarrely.

      There's no shame in borrowing good ideas! Just please stop renaming them, explaining them badly, slapping bright yellow racing fins on them, and pretending that they're completely new and different. Th

      • This is where we differ, I think. I don't really give a bugger if people want to give things fancy new names, so long as the thing itself is useful. The RSpec crew have taken the view that the reason many people don't do Test Driven Design is because it seems arse about face to them. Testing is what you do after you've done the programming after all. (I remember once having a rather voluble argument with someone about the benefits of running your test before implementing anything to make sure that it failed).

        They think that, by recasting tests as executable specifications and (in the more recent iterations) stories, they'll convince more people to start writing tests first, which can only be a good thing.

        The trouble is, they risk (succeed in) pissing off those folks who are already convinced of the value of writing their tests first by renaming a perfectly good set of names. Arguably, one of the benefits of calling it Test Driven Development is the very same crogglement that the BDD types are trying to reduce.

        Also, ISTR we all called the practice "Test First Development" until around the time Beck published "Test Driven Development", which is definitely a way better name for the process. Chelimsky and friends are just attempting to find a better name again and, from our point of view at least, they've failed.
        • I don't really give a bugger if people want to give things fancy new names, so long as the thing itself is useful.

          I care, if it confuses the innocent. Count the number of people who say "We use BDD and TDD" or "I'm learning BDD and TDD". The number is non-trivial.

          Also, ISTR we all called the practice "Test First Development" until around the time Beck published "Test Driven Development", which is definitely a way better name for the process.

          Agreed. Also, I prefer the term Test-Driven Design, but