[rspec-users] Is BDD with RSpec cheaper?
Lori M Olson
loriolson at mac.com
Mon Jul 7 15:34:02 EDT 2008
On 7-Jul-08, at 12:25 PM, yitzhakbg wrote:
> This might be a loaded question on this forum, but here goes:
> Just had a discussion with a prospective employer, a Ruby On Rails
> shop. His
> reaction to BDD development on every project was skeptical, saying
> like: "It depends on the project". "Some jobs are so short that the
> time invested in developing tests doesn't justify the cost".
> He was insistent that writing tests costs more. After all, you write
> first the tests, then the code (or the other way 'round).
> My question is: From hard, practical, cold real world experience, is
> so? Is BDD development more expensive? Let me qualify that. One could
> answer, "no, since the tests save you pain and heartache down the
> line". The
> question is whether BDD coding with RSpec is more expensive in the
> implementation phase and how much truth there is in the statement
> that BDD
> isn't for every project, like quick knock ups for example?
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-BDD-with-RSpec-cheaper--tp18323328p18323328.html
> Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
This is a TCO issue. IT WILL slow down initial development on a
small, well defined app, and there is no way around that. But over
the life of a medium-to-large application, BDD will greatly reduce
maintenance and enhancement costs.
So, if you are a contracting firm, paid to build sites, but not to
maintain them, that might be a point you want to consider. But if I
was your customer, I wouldn't likely be coming back to you. If you
are hired to build and maintain an application, I really can't see a
downside to writing the tests.
More information about the rspec-users