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