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