[rspec-users] Caboosers drop RSpec
zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Nov 4 09:58:36 EST 2008
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Steven Baker <steven at stevenrbaker.com> wrote:
>> 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 security.
I agree with your thoughts and sentiments Steven.
More information about the rspec-users