On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:24 PM, David A. Black <dblack / rubypal.com> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:20 AM, David A. Black <dblack / rubypal.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The model generation just gives you a file with an empty class definition
>>> for
>>> your tests, and I think something similar happens with RSpec. (Just to
>>> clarify: I'm talking about model generation, not scaffold generation,
>>> which does give you all sorts of tests and which I dislike strongly
>>> and consider manifestly counter-productive.)
>>
>> Hi David - I'm curious to know more about why you find this
>> counter-productive, if you wouldn't mind sharing.
>
> Sorry -- I didn't spot this among the unread for some reason.
>
> I don't want to go into depth since we're not in a Rails forum, but in
> brief, it's my experience that the scaffolding neither provides a good
> starting point for a production application (which I don't believe it
> was ever intended to), nor serves as a good learning tool (which I
> believe it is supposed to be). It's a one-trick pony, and there's much
> too much of a history of people getting confused or stymied because
> they assume that what the scaffolding does is somehow a "default" or
> authoritative application skeleton.

Hey David,

Thanks for the response. And here's my late response to yours for much
the same reason...

I understood your previous comment to mean you found the code examples
generated by rspec to be counter productive, but now I'm sensing its
actually the scaffolding.

Forgetting about rspec or rails, my take is that generated code is
just like your own code as far as the ruby runtime is concerned, and
that *if* you are using generated code and maintaining it, that it
should be accompanied by a robust set of generated tests.

Agree? Disagree?

Thanks for playing,
David