Boost logo

Boost :

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
> behaviour.
> * 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
> 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
of revolution.

> 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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at