[rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec

Steven Baker steven at stevenrbaker.com
Tue Nov 4 09:37:22 EST 2008

> Subject: [rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec

The subject is wrong too; Caboosers didn't drop RSpec.  Two people  
from caboose dropped RSpec.  Most of the caboosers I know are still  
using RSpec.

> Any responses to http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2008/11/4/we-ve-stopped-using-rspec 
>  ? How much of this is due to legitimate bugs/problems versus  
> unfortunate circumstances? Feels kind of worrying that they haven't  
> been able to make it work for them.

Big difference between "haven't been able to" and "wouldn't learn the  
tools".  Ashley's post below sums it up best.  This is a problem  
that's seen regularly when working with new ideas.  How many times  
have you seen Agile blamed when a project fails due to poor  
management?  I personally see this all the time.

A poor craftsman blames his tools.

I don't get upset when people stop using RSpec, but I do get rather  
upset when people blame it because they mis-used it.  The caboose post  
just seems to justify this kind of behaviour.  Notice the first  
comment, which says:

 From Patrick Reagan: "We liked the BDD-style syntax and context, but  
found that it gave a false sense of security when it came to doing  
functional testing because the views were completely separated from  
the controllers under test."

Patrick completely misses the point.  He had bad examples (which are  
worse than no examples at all) and blames RSpec because he doesn't  
understand BDD.  This isn't just BDD, decoupling is one of the  
benefits realized by the original TDD folks, and he's saying "No, I  
want my separate objects to be coupled tightly because it's less  
work."  The tight coupling is actually what gives the false sense of  


More information about the rspec-users mailing list