On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:54 PM, daly <d...@axiom-developer.org> wrote:
> > > > > The combination of literate + TDD seems forbidding. > > Are you finding it hard to explain why you wrote a test? > > Tim Daly > > I decided awhile back when trying to answer questions about literate programming, that people get caught up in the moving parts, and not in what the approach actually yields. Your statement above puts it nicely and succinctly, and hearkens back to Knuths original articles. Lately I emphasize the woven text (without inititially calling it that) and ask the person I'm talking with to imagine writing an article or book about their code, how it works, with proofs where appropriate. That article should be written as a work of literature. Not all literature has to be Hugo or Melville (or Jack Kerouac, or Gertrude Stein for that matter). Some programs are more appropriately Mickey Spillane or Terry Pratchett, or even in the style of a manual for an electric razor. The point is that it should be satisfying to read and comprehensively informative. Test code, and descriptions of external libraries are no different from any other sections of the article or book. The most important thing is to introduce them into the work at point most conducive to the reader's understanding. I really believe that there's no programming or engineering methodology which doesn't lend itself to literate programming. If it can be described, it can be presented in the form of an article. If it can't be describe in human language it's probably terrible code. Larry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
