On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:25 PM, yitzhakbg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This might be a loaded question on this forum, but here goes: > Just had a discussion with a prospective employer, a Ruby On Rails shop. His > reaction to BDD development on every project was skeptical, saying something > like: "It depends on the project". "Some jobs are so short that the extra > time invested in developing tests doesn't justify the cost". > He was insistent that writing tests costs more. After all, you write twice: > first the tests, then the code (or the other way 'round). > My question is: From hard, practical, cold real world experience, is that > so? Is BDD development more expensive? Let me qualify that. One could > answer, "no, since the tests save you pain and heartache down the line". The > question is whether BDD coding with RSpec is more expensive in the > implementation phase and how much truth there is in the statement that BDD > isn't for every project, like quick knock ups for example?
I'd say the cutoff-point for me is at around 100 lines of code. I've successfully developed little one-off scripts - either utilities or throw-away experimental spikes - of that length or less using only manual testing, which may have taken a little longer had I developed them test-first. I don't think something of this size really qualifies as a "project" though. With anything larger than 100 lines I know from experience that I'd just be slowing the project down if I failed to use TDD/BDD. -- Avdi Home: http://avdi.org Developer Blog: http://avdi.org/devblog/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/avdi Journal: http://avdi.livejournal.com _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
