On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Matt Wynne <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 13 Jan 2009, at 17:14, Mark Wilden wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM, James Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application and so, rather than >> waste effort on policing the feature syntax, I thought it best just to >> accommodate the likely variations from the start. >> >> Premature flexibility is one of the roots of all evil. :) >> >> Seriously, your code has two types of users. Yes, you should make writing >> features easier for biz, but you should also make reading steps easier for >> dev. Given that, I like the suggestion of explicitly enumerating the choices >> of verbiage. A clear pointer toward that choice is the comment. A comment is >> an apology for unclear code. All unclear code should be commented, but >> unclear code should be avoided whenever possible. >> >> All IMO, of course. > > +1 to all that. I feel like you get lectured quite a bit by this list James, > but you'd do well to heed the advice of some battle-hardened journeymen, > IMO. > > Read Eric Evans' excellent book 'Domain Driven Design', which actually > inspired a lot of this BDD stuff you're using, to hear how keeping faithful > to a 'Ubiquitous Language' can make a big difference to the success or > failure of a project. > > You're not just policing syntax when you encourage people to use the same > words for things, you're actually protecting the integrity of your system by > reducing the opportunities for misunderstanding.
This last paragraph was beautifully said Matt. I am going to steal it (and give you credit of course). :) -- Zach Dennis http://www.continuousthinking.com http://www.mutuallyhuman.com _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
