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
In the near future, the probability is close to zero. In the distant
future, I'll be dead, and posterity can do whatever they like... :-) --lwall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
TDD != testing (Score:1)
I love Perl. I love testing :-)
That said... while I see a lot of focus on *testing* in Perl. I've not encountered *that* much focus on TDD. They are - as you know - completely different things.
Now I've not spent huge amount of time with Ruby teams / code bases / community - so I can't say whether they're better or worse. But evidence of testing != evidence of TDD.
Re:TDD != testing (Score:1)
TDD is all well and good, but if you don't run your tests, you've wasted your time writing them.
Say what you like about the Perl community, the language, our testing libraries, our culture, or whatever -- but we run our tests.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
No I haven't. I still get the "D" from TDD. I get that even if a third party never runs my tests again.
I'm not saying running tests is useless. They're not. I'm not saying that the Perl/CPAN testing infrastructure isn't grand. It's fantastic - the best in any language that I've used.
I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with whether Perl folk do TDD. Because it doesn't. And that was the quote you seemed to
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed, but we can measure that neither for Perl nor Ruby.
Along those lines, I'm sure you have the same experience that I do, that many (if not most) people who claim to do TDD really don't, not in any pervasive fashion.
Perhaps I've overspoken here, especially claiming that TDD without running the tests is