[rspec-users] exemplary way to show a list is sorted?

James Byrne lists at ruby-forum.com
Tue Feb 10 22:09:47 EST 2009


Zach Dennis wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM, James Byrne <lists at ruby-forum.com> 
> wrote:
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> please use "should be >=" as "should >=" will eventually be deprecated
>>> and removed.
>>>
>>
>> Removed?  You are not seriously contemplating forcing people to go back
>> and rewrite formally working specifications simply to tidy up the syntax
>> are you?
> 
> Forcing people, eh? You don't have to upgrade when that release is
> made. No one is holding a gun to your head. You can always choose to
> progress with the library, as it continues to evolve into new and
> better ways of doing things.

There are enterprises in which the stability of development tools and 
the confidence that one will not be forced to redo work already 
completed is considered somewhat important, whatever your own situation 
might be.  Likewise, assuming the costs of maintaining a customized 
variant of a general tool or foregoing future improvements in same to 
maintain the value of existing work is not a choice savoured by many 
firms that I can bring to mind, even if yours might be exceptional in 
this regard.  At issue is something commonly referred to as 
cost/benefit, which ultimately turns into profit and loss.

I simply fail to see why evolving a tool in "better ways" necessarily 
requires that the formerly "better" but now depreciated method be 
removed.  Such action causes avoidable and pointless work. I consider my 
observation to be both reasonable and pertinent.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.


More information about the rspec-users mailing list