Hi David 2009/4/1 David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com>:
>. That said, in some idealistic BDD fashion, I'd think the best > deal would be the tester and developer pairing on automating AC. Then > that developer would pair with another developer driving out the code > w/ TDD. If we have two different sets of people implementing the AC and driving code with TDD then does this not prevent the TDD\BDD interplay? Development is in small steps, so if we create a mock for the first AC step see it fail then move down into TDD to make that pass, refactor then move up (red => green => refactor) again - then this - to me -, has surely got to be done by the same set off people. I think the user step mocks are likely to be re-factored out when we have some tangible output (e.g a GUI) > I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if you're > proficient in Ruby and you're pairing with a reasonably skilled > developer in any C-based language like C Sharp, the language barrier > will be fairly small. There are some hoops, like meta-programming, > blocks and iterators, but not too many beyond that. I don't mean that > to be flippant. Even if the dev has zero experience with these > concepts, he really doesn't need to understand them in order to > progress if you're pairing. > When you go to Harversters they ask 'have you been here before?'. Maybe not, but I can eat with a knife and fork. However, - I will put myself on a limb - some programmers have been conditioned by MS on the practices and uses of tools. No intellisense, no visual debugger, no static assignment or compilation, a command lin...@? Many are just not happy with it. Aidy _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
