|Steve Eichert on 13 Sep 2007 17:14:53 -0000|
I, for one, think that this is the perfect forum to debate and inform others. I also think that the most valuable insight into a given technology comes from using it day in and day out and seeing its "warts". Once those warts are uncovered you can begin to make informed decisions about the most appropriate and beneficial ways to use the given technology.
Back to one of the topics addressed in the critique of RSpec. It was mentioned that RSpec causes you to violate the DRY principal. Do you think that violation is appropriate? I've found that when writing tests/specifications you should always prefer readability over DRY'ness. As I've heard others say "production code needs to be dry, but tests don't".
One of the other things that I'd be interested in hearing more about from those who are using RSpec is does it tend to push you in the direction of using it as a testing/verification tool or as a design tool. One of the biggest problems I have with the term "Test Driven Development" is that it leads people to think that its about testing, when in actuality it's all about design. People (myself included) tend to get caught up in the test part of TDD and forget that the point of TDD, as it was originally "developed", is to help you design your software in a certain way. So, for those using RSpec, do you think BDD and RSpec help you stay more focused on the design aspects that are the key to TDD, or does it cause you to go more towards the testing/verification mindset? My initial impression is that it might lead you to just worry about whether your code passes the specifications, and not necessarily towards the best design.
On 9/13/07, Cassius Rosenthal <email@example.com> wrote:
Well, I didn't mean to tick anybody off, and I apologize if I hit a
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.phillyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/talk