[Rspec-devel] Lingo

Luke Redpath luke at agileevolved.com
Thu Aug 10 03:49:47 EDT 2006

> Here is my take on some of them
> == Spec ==
> Pro: Fits well with the RSpec name
> Con: Not so easy to 'talk' about
> Con: Doesn't underline the Behavioural gist of BDD


Whilst I still find myself using the T word out of habit, I'm trying  
to get into the habit of using the word spec - I like it. It goes  
hand in hand with RSpec (which I also like the sound of), I can say  
that I'm "speccing" my code/app and I have no problem with "running  
my specs". It also keeps to the notion of executable specifications.

> == Example ==
> Pro: Easy to talk about
> Con: Doesn't fit with the RSpec name
> Con: doesn't fit with BDD lingo


I just don't like the word example used in this context. To me the  
word example has to many other uses/connotations to make it worth  
considering. It sounds silly to me to talk about your code "examples".

> == Behaviour ==
> Pro: Fits with the BDD lingo
> Con: May be hard to talk about in some situations / with some people
> Con: Doesn't fit the RSpec name


This is a lot better than example but it doesn't roll off the tongue  
like the word spec does.

I'm certainly not keen on the idea of changing RSpec's name. I like  
the name, I'm always trying to plug it on forums/IRC chat etc. and  
changing the name now would just make the job of promoting RSpec  
harder. It will confuse people who have vaguely heard of RSpec but  
haven't got around to using it yet IMO.


More information about the Rspec-devel mailing list