Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On 9/17/06, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Anyway, I should assert (pardon the pun ;) ) that behavior specification in code (as a DSEL?) is an illusion. People would tend to believe that with it, you can specify a program behavior and get away with no documentation. Proof in point: Richard Newman's post (unless I misunderstood him). That makes me worry.
It's a bit of a stretch, but I think the BDD interface to specification as opposed to the Assert methods for TDD are mere alternatives to each other.
Alternatives just tend to confuse things more than help.
Because:
ASSERT_EQUAL(a, 10)
Is pretty much tantamount and equivalent to:
value(a).should.equal(10);
It's a case of "Tomaytoe" "Tomahtoe" :-D
True. But neither of those is more readable to the likely person writing the specs/tests than: test( a == 10 ); Yes I keep changing the function name, I used "ensure" and someone replied that it was the same as "assert". And yes, that's my point. It's a mechanism that programmers are already familiar with, and comes naturally to them. So why rewrite it into a less capable form? I have another simple question; Does Ruby have the equivalent of assert? -- -- 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