On Feb 4, 2008 1:20 AM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For some info on why BDD kicks TDD's butt ...
Woah! I find this deeply disturbing. I believe your heart is in the right place here, so please don't take this as a personal attack, but this statement reflects a view that I see expressed quite often and I think we need to set the record straight on a few things. To be clear, what I'm about to express are my personal views and may not align with those of Dan, Dave, Aslak and others who are driving the BDD discussion. This is not a contest between approaches. BDD started off as a thought experiment: an attempt to find a better way to *talk* about TDD, because some of us who felt like we *got* TDD wanted to help those that we felt didn't. The process (at the object level) was (and remains) the same. We were just playing with words and constructs to better evoke what we believed to be the essence of TDD: driving out implementation with executable examples of the expected behaviour. Over time BDD has grown to include TDD (which is about the behaviour of objects) and an approach to Customer Acceptance Testing (which is about the behaviour of systems) called Acceptance Test Driven Planning. It's evolving into a full-stack agile process, so at this point trying to compare TDD with BDD doesn't make sense since the former is part of the latter. But even back when BDD was only about objects, it was still TDD at it's core. Not better than TDD. Not even different from TDD as practiced by those who really understood it. So while "TDD as intended" kicks "TDD the way many do"'s butt, and while BDD may help people to see the light, that light still belongs to TDD. FWIW, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
