On Nov 12, 2007 9:39 AM, Brian Takita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to start gathering information/debating on the > advantages/disadvantages of using it "should ..." vs other techniques. > > Dan North explained why we should use should: > http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd/ > > I used to use it "should ..." for the projects I was on, until I was > challenged by a fellow developer who started using it with an active > voice. > For example instead of: > it "should go to the park" > An active voice would be: > it "goes to the park" > > After a few days of reluctance (or stubbornly hanging on to the rspec > "convention"), I eventually adopted and grown to love using the active > voice. > > Here are the main reasons that I prefer an active voice because: > * using it "should ..." over and over renders should meaningless (I > have grown this barely conscience aversion to the word 'should') > * less less words are needed > * the differentiating information of the 'it' statement is in the > front, rather than hidden behind should (space to the left is at a > premium) > * it describes what the software will do and what it does (both from > the Test Driven Design and Regression verification lifecycles of the > test) > * you still have a good "sentence template" that "should" provides > (you have to make a coherent sentence) > > So here it my initial stab. Lets discuss :) > > Thanks, > Brian > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
At first glance I think this will be an awkward style for me to adopt. It'll take a bit to break out of my current mentality. That said, I think it makes a lot of sense. I'm going to try it out this week, and hopefully I'll fall in love with it. Pat _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
