[rspec-users] Help with regexp in matcher

Zach Dennis zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 14:57:33 EST 2009


On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 2009, at 17:14, Mark Wilden wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:41 AM, James Byrne <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>>
>> Logins are a pervasive feature of this application and so, rather than
>> waste effort on policing the feature syntax, I thought it best just to
>> accommodate the likely variations from the start.
>>
>> Premature flexibility is one of the roots of all evil. :)
>>
>> Seriously, your code has two types of users. Yes, you should make writing
>> features easier for biz, but you should also make reading steps easier for
>> dev. Given that, I like the suggestion of explicitly enumerating the choices
>> of verbiage. A clear pointer toward that choice is the comment. A comment is
>> an apology for unclear code. All unclear code should be commented, but
>> unclear code should be avoided whenever possible.
>>
>> All IMO, of course.
>
> +1 to all that. I feel like you get lectured quite a bit by this list James,
> but you'd do well to heed the advice of some battle-hardened journeymen,
> IMO.
>
> Read Eric Evans' excellent book 'Domain Driven Design', which actually
> inspired a lot of this BDD stuff you're using, to hear how keeping faithful
> to a 'Ubiquitous Language' can make a big difference to the success or
> failure of a project.
>
> You're not just policing syntax when you encourage people to use the same
> words for things, you're actually protecting the integrity of your system by
> reducing the opportunities for misunderstanding.

This last paragraph was beautifully said Matt. I am going to steal it
(and give you credit of course). :)

-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com


More information about the rspec-users mailing list