Re: [boost] Interest in a Behavior Driven Development Framework

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
specification.

> 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
> 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
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
www.boost-consulting.com