use Perl

• Calm down dear, it's only programming (Score:1)

  by pdcawley (485)

  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
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by chromatic (983)

    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
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by pdcawley (485)

      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
      • Re:Calm down dear, it's only programming (Score:1)

        by chromatic (983) on 2008.02.08 2:39 (#60963) Homepage Journal

        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 that gets to the point you made in your first paragraph that "something" is what you do before/after "something" else. My best strategy for that is encouraging those companies to send out lots of press releases about their development approach and hope that the resulting noisy failures will convince the rest of the world not to do things that way. So far so good.

        Reply to This

        Parent