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

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-14 11:42:48

Kevin Wheatley wrote:
> Unfortunately in my line if work we don't have very clear cut ideas 
> for what we want, e.g. "make it look ghostly" isn't a good form for 
> acceptance testing, but in the more standard parts of the business it 
> is possible.

Requirements such as "make it look ghostly" just don't belong in the 
realm of code design. As a programmer you should never see such 
requirements. You are likely referring to game/entertainment 
development, in which such requirements are the responsibility of the 
artists, and the producer. But this is straying considerably off-topic 
now... So to bring it back. If we are talking about describing 
programming requirements they should be defined in terms of the 
language. To take some of Dean's examples:

====
int my_value = 0;
//...
value(my_value).should.equal(10); // will throw an exception
value(my_value).should.not_equal(9); // will also throw an exception

char * my_pointer = NULL;
//...
pointer(my_pointer).should.be_null(); // will evaluate to true, or do 
nothing
pointer(my_pointer).should.not_be_null(); // will throw an exception
====

I would expect to more native syntax:

====
int my_value = 0;
ensure( 10 == my_value );
ensure( 9 != my_value );

char * my_pointer = NULL ;
ensure( NULL == my_pointer );
ensure( NULL != my_Pointer );
====

Hence why I don't see the point of BDD when I'd rather have a contract 
definition framework.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo