[rspec-users] Current Evaluation of RSpec

Rick DeNatale rick.denatale at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 12:47:42 EDT 2009

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Stephen Eley <sfeley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
> <vanweerd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking around outside of the book, reading reviews of RSpec on the web
>> seems tricky. Most reviews seem very dated, and as a result are misleading.
>> Is this an accurate assessment?
> I don't think so.  The core syntax and sensibilities of RSpec haven't
> changed in any disruptive way.  It's added new features, like those
> contexts and such, but there's no compulsion to use them.  And to me
> they don't have much impact on the fundamental _flavor_ of RSpec.

Well it depends on how far back you go, and how old those reviews are.

When RSpec first appeared the syntax was a bit different, and it added
a lot of methods to Kernel/Object.  Some of the folks who looked at it
in it's early days had a negative reaction to that.

Some folks blogged about that reaction back then.  I kept my powder
dry IIRC.  About a year later, after seeing David C's presentation at
RubyConf 2007, and talking to him I decided to give it another look. I
wrote this article:


And I haven't looked back since.

I know that some well known Ruby/Rails personalities and companies
continued to disdain RSpec after the initial impression,  For example
here's the article by my friend Rob Sanheim, which prompted me to
write that article.

  (It seems to be down right now, try googling for sanheim rspec and
check the cached version)

But that seems to be changing.

Rob wrote this more recently:

Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

More information about the rspec-users mailing list