On 7-Jul-08, at 12:25 PM, yitzhakbg wrote:
This might be a loaded question on this forum, but here goes:
Just had a discussion with a prospective employer, a Ruby On Rails
shop. His
reaction to BDD development on every project was skeptical, saying
something
like: "It depends on the project". "Some jobs are so short that the
extra
time invested in developing tests doesn't justify the cost".
He was insistent that writing tests costs more. After all, you write
twice:
first the tests, then the code (or the other way 'round).
My question is: From hard, practical, cold real world experience, is
that
so? Is BDD development more expensive? Let me qualify that. One could
answer, "no, since the tests save you pain and heartache down the
line". The
question is whether BDD coding with RSpec is more expensive in the
implementation phase and how much truth there is in the statement
that BDD
isn't for every project, like quick knock ups for example?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Is-BDD-with-RSpec-cheaper--tp18323328p18323328.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
This is a TCO issue. IT WILL slow down initial development on a
small, well defined app, and there is no way around that. But over
the life of a medium-to-large application, BDD will greatly reduce
maintenance and enhancement costs.
So, if you are a contracting firm, paid to build sites, but not to
maintain them, that might be a point you want to consider. But if I
was your customer, I wouldn't likely be coming back to you. If you
are hired to build and maintain an application, I really can't see a
downside to writing the tests.
Regards,
Lori
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
