On Dec 30, 2007 10:09 PM, Francis Hwang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Jay Levitt wrote: > > >>> Incidentally, how well-tested was that code base? 200 lines of copy- > >> and-paste smells like untested code to me. > > > > 15-20 years ago, unit tests were not a widespread industry practice :) > > This code's in a procedural language that really, really doesn't do > > unit tests well. I've been trying, too. Almost wrote a pre- > > processor, > > till I thought about the maintenance nightmare that'd cause. > > Right, that's why I ask. I think working with languages, tools, and > frameworks that are easier to test is a great advantage to how we all > worked 10 or more years ago ... I suspect part of that luxury > translates in being able to actually design _less_, since the cost of > fixing our design mistakes in the future goes down significantly.
I don't think of it as designing less. (B/T)DD means designing incrementally. I read recently something where someone made a distinction between invention and discovery. Rather than sitting down 'ahead of time' and inventing a design, you can discover the design as you go. The tests/specs become the design documentation themselves, and can evolve as requirements change or are refined as the process continues. -- Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
