[rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec
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
> 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