On Sep 7, 2008, at 7:21 PM, Bryan Liles wrote:
RSpec is a tool, it should be in face *minimally* (yes, this is important!) A job description that mentioned RSpec explicitly would signal a red flag to me.
Not at all! A mention of RSpec would be a great thing. In fact, it's one of the things that attracted me to my current job at EastMedia. They knew I had contributed patches to the framework, and this helped me to get hired. Being there, I've not only had plenty of freedom to work on RSpec, but also on Stories, and to pair with Bryan, the creator of webrat.
But what things make a job appealing? What technologies, skills, practices and methodologies make for a good BDD role?
Any sort of mention of testing or BDD would be attractive to a BDD'er. Mentioning RSpec would in fact mean that the job is forward thinking - that they aren't bogged down with legacy code (i.e. Test::Unit) and legacy thinking.
I was interested in the job at EM because it was obvious that they would allow me to use the tools that made *me* most productive, and that this toolset could change and adapt to my workflow.
Scott _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
