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