3 ms·

Oh, boy. As usual anyone trying to define the difference between BDD and TDD gets it wrong. The difference between TDD and BDD isn't the tone in which you descr

Oh, boy. As usual anyone trying to define the difference between BDD and TDD gets it wrong. The difference between TDD and BDD isn't the tone in which you describe your test examples. The difference lies in the depth of the layer you start developing a system (or subsystem) at. Some refer to this as Outside-In versus Inside-Out. BDD and TDD have nothing to do with DSLs or the tone in which you describe your test examples. As an example, I practice BDD but I use MiniTest, a "TDD" testing library.

parasubvert 12y ago
BDD's difference in comparison to TDD absolutely has to do with tone - more likely philosophy of how one programs. It's about whether you're more comfortable verifying behavior or state. Mockist testing and BDD is the former , Classic TDD is the latter. TDD doesn't care how you write the test since it's about verifying states. Kent mostly used it for inside-out testing and never uses mocks, but sometimes plays with middle-out or outside-in interactions using programmer tests, fake objects, and stubs. Only BDD was about specifying the test as a behavioural description in a DSL, and is always outside-in. It's pretty clear cut.
- rubiquity 12y ago
  It seems you're misinformed as well. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BehaviourDrivenDevelopment http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BehaviourDrivenDevelopment Again, nothing to do with silly syntax. It's about acceptance testing.
  - parasubvert 12y ago
    It seems you're not reading what I (or anyone else) wrote. I never mentioned syntax. I mentioned a DSL. Using a DSL is about much more than syntax, it is about expressing verifiable behavior tests in a ubiquitous language. I said nothing about any specific syntax of external or internal DSL, heck people contort FitNesse to fit BDD for whatever reason. I have been on Ward's wiki since 1998, this isn't exactly new. It's also not for everyone.
    - rubiquity 12y ago
      Sorry, by syntax I meant DSL. So by your logic, a language that doesn't have good ability to create DSLs can't do BDD?

parasubvert 12y ago

BDD's difference in comparison to TDD absolutely has to do with tone - more likely philosophy of how one programs. It's about whether you're more comfortable verifying behavior or state. Mockist testing and BDD is the former , Classic TDD is the latter. TDD doesn't care how you write the test since it's about verifying states. Kent mostly used it for inside-out testing and never uses mocks, but sometimes plays with middle-out or outside-in interactions using programmer tests, fake objects, and stubs. Only BDD was about specifying the test as a behavioural description in a DSL, and is always outside-in. It's pretty clear cut.

rubiquity 12y ago
It seems you're misinformed as well. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BehaviourDrivenDevelopment http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BehaviourDrivenDevelopment Again, nothing to do with silly syntax. It's about acceptance testing.
- parasubvert 12y ago
  It seems you're not reading what I (or anyone else) wrote. I never mentioned syntax. I mentioned a DSL. Using a DSL is about much more than syntax, it is about expressing verifiable behavior tests in a ubiquitous language. I said nothing about any specific syntax of external or internal DSL, heck people contort FitNesse to fit BDD for whatever reason. I have been on Ward's wiki since 1998, this isn't exactly new. It's also not for everyone.
  - rubiquity 12y ago
    Sorry, by syntax I meant DSL. So by your logic, a language that doesn't have good ability to create DSLs can't do BDD?