4 ms·
> more like written languages, and that this would make it easier for the programmer to reason about programs, It's also said that it was intended to help non-
by 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
> more like written languages, and that this would make it easier for the programmer to reason about programs,
It's also said that it was intended to help non-programmers:
1. Help managers better understand what the heck their employees were doing.
2. Enable other non-technical stakeholders to participate in reviewing the business logic.
As you can imagine that didn't actually help very much.
(I've heard people express similar skepticism about natural language testing frameworks, although I don't know if that's fair or not.)
- moron4hire 13y agoAt the very least, I think it's an unnecessary context-switch. Why introduce yet another language in your toolchain? The boss isn't going to be able to understand the natural language tests, because s/he will be introducing their own assumptions to the ambiguous nature of human language. Like how non-programmers tend to use "or" to mean "exclusive-or". Or the plethora of issues that come up when assuming N-based indexing when you actually have (1 - N)-based indexing (for values of N that are either 0 or 1).