From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-14 06:57:01
"Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Hi Dave!
> On 9/14/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Watching the video about 25% through, so far I don't get what he's
>> talking about or why BDD is different from what I do anyway or how it
>> can benefit me.
> It's really just a "clarification" of Test Driven Development. The
> gist is as follows:
> * Instead of emphasizing on "Tests", you emphasize "Specification".
> * The assert_* line of methods leans on the "testing" and
> "invalidation" of results and values.
Yeah, I heard him say that, but didn't buy that line at all. An
ASSERT says: here's what I'm saying the behavior/result is. That's
> The language used is also not very clear when using it to specify
> * Specifications are made more readable. They have an implementation
> in Ruby called `RSpec' which uses a more readable framework than
> `assert_something(value_tested, expected_value)' -- you can look at
> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/ for more information on that.
Yeah, OK, so there's a DSL... not a very convincing one either,
especially in light of the use of "should"
> It's not different from TDD, but it's a clarification of it.
Somehow it was much less clear to me, because it was sold as some kind
> It still follows the same concepts, only the tools are made closer
> to read like you're actually specifying behavior instead of
> invalidating state with asserts.
You mean validating, don't you?
And the distinction between state and behavior is extremely weak, at
least as presented so far.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk