On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:06 PM, Ken Bloom wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:49:51 -0500, James Gray wrote: > >> On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:56 AM, Zouplaz wrote: >> >>> Hello, I'm not trolling. I don't like specs (RSpec) : everytime I >>> had a >>> look to specs I felt it was only syntaxic sugar driven by a big >>> machinery and I continued to write classic unit tests. >>> >>> But I've seen more and more projects using rspec - So I consider >>> beeing >>> wrong about this software. >>> >>> Do you have any link to articles that advocates for or against >>> specs ? >> >> I think this is a great read: >> >> http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2008/03/the-language-in.html >> >> James Edward Gray II > > I've read that before. Can anyone defend rspec against that attack? > What > does rspec do better? I want to get a better idea of why they invented > this quasi-English framework. I think RSpec does some things well. * I love the normal strings used for test naming as opposed to wearing out your underscore key with test/unit * I have found contexts to be generally an improvement, despite the negative break down from the shoulda author * Despite the jokes about how they just changed a T to a B, I do think BDD has improved awareness of key testing concepts James Edward Gray II