On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 15:59 -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
Yeah, I keep meaning to start using this some, but it hasn't seemed
as hugely beneficial as I would like. I'm assuming I'll get around
to it one of these days, but I'm secretly hoping that someone else
(*cough*mpalmer*cough*) will start using it and I can just take
advantage of it.
I really like it. I just started using it recently and I'm finding it a
much more natural and expressive way to write my tests - 'specification,
not verification'. Instead of merely verifying that your code behaves
correctly, you are specifying what it means for your code to behave
correctly. RSpec's grammar encourages you to write specifications in a
straightforward, human-readable way. It's quite possible for a
non-programmer to look at a well-written set of specs and understand
what the application is supposed to do.
I hear people asking 'So what does RSpec do that Test::Unit doesn't?'
It's the wrong question (the answer is 'Nothing, except integrate
support for some useful tools like RCov and Heckle').
The right question is 'Am I writing better tests with RSpec, and am I
enjoying it more?' ('Yes, and yes.')