3 ms·
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 v
by 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 agoIt 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 agoIt 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 agoSorry, by syntax I meant DSL. So by your logic, a language that doesn't have good ability to create DSLs can't do BDD?