Wasn't "assertion-driven" just a change of diction intended to alter
semantics? That is, thread started out by mulling the benefits of referring to
"test-driven development" as "assertion-driven development" so that those in greater
power may be convinced of its merit.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:59:54PM -0400, Steve Berczuk wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:18:39 -0400, Russell Gold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So should we really be speaking of Assertion-Driven Development rather
> > than Test-Driven Development? It would certainly eliminate the need to
> > warn that it is not about testing.
>
> While I understand your point, I think that referring to ADD is a bad
> idea. ADD implies to me assertions in the code (not in test code).
> Anyway testing IS part of development. Using a different word just
> hides the underlying problem.
>
> Why are the developers against testing? (I can guess at some of the
> common reasons, but I'd like to know what this team is thinking)
>
> -Steve
>
>
> --
> Steve Berczuk | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.berczuk.com
> SCM Patterns: Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
> www.scmpatterns.com
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sean Gilbertson
IT Systems/Software Developer
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
