Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side

I just created a new Visual Studio solution and created within an empty class project called “Domain.”

I then created a new test class project and called it “DomainSpecs” instead of the previously expected “DomainTests.”

Oh, how I hate underscores.

I will *not*, however, embed As a/I want/So that or Given/When/Then syntax into code. I have my standards.

posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:10 PM

Comments

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: Sergio Pereira; 5/27/2009 9:26 PM; LOL. A man has to live by some standards. I also dislike underscores.. they just magnify how inadequate our tools really are.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: Scott Parker; 5/28/2009 9:00 PM; Out of curiosity, did you switch to a spec framework rather than (or in addition to) a test framework?

I'm just curious as I'm making such a transition myself soon. I too dislike the underscore frenzy and so I find myself interested in the technique that Phil Haack outlines in http://haacked.com/archive/2008/08/24/introducing-subspec.aspx . I know it has its detractors (notably Bellware, but a few others as well) but to me it succeeds in being more scannable and understandable.

I am a total noob, however.
-Scott

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: Anarchy Ryan; 5/29/2009 9:45 AM; What the heck IS BDD anyway? How does it differ from TDD?

I think you'd be an excellent person to answer these questions.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: jdn; 5/29/2009 9:52 AM; I'm looking at Machine.Specifications, but the fundamental problem is that I *hate* BDD 'see spot run' syntax and the idea that you should actually embed that in code. I get it that it might be nice to be able to show a neat little print-out or HTML page to your BAs, but I think there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole thing.

Except I haven't figured out how to make it better yet.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: jdn; 5/29/2009 12:00 PM; Ryan

If you want a good overview, read Bellware's CODE magazine article:

http://www.code-magazine.com/article.aspx?quickid=0805061&page=1

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: Anarchy Ryan; 5/29/2009 2:01 PM; Actually I was trying to get you to write a witty post describing the differences, mostly for my own entertainment. Oh well. Thanks for the link!

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: jdn; 5/29/2009 2:17 PM; @AR

I have a 'Why BDD sucks' post in some form of development, but it isn't anywhere near done (or fully coherent, though that has never stopped me).

I also have a presentation called 'The Dangers of Software Craftsmanship' in development that includes BDD as part of the discussion, but the pricks voting for the Chicago Code Camp didn't pick it as a session, so it probably won't get much attention for a bit.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: Sergio Pereira; 6/3/2009 7:36 AM; Thanks for calling me a prick and disregarding all the other presenter just because there were 45 sessions more compelling than yours submitted. By the way "Code Camp" kind of implies that your session should be about code. Your abstract didn't mention anything about code, it looked like a dissertation about Craftsmanship and friends. I'm sure there are other events where such talk would be perfectly fitting. Just make sure you submit a decent abstract.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: jdn; 6/3/2009 10:20 AM; Yes, I'm sure the presenters were all great, including the ones you double booked, including one of the people who was doing the voting.

Since we're all about continuous improvement, couple of things you might want to consider:

- post publicly in explicit detail the who, when, how of the selection process, instead of doing it all sooper seKret like.

- don't ask for submissions in categories like Software Craftsmanship (no idea what the 'friends' reference was about) if you don't want them (there would have been code but it is a 'meta' category so it wouldn't have been a discussion of the 19 command line parameters of gitbash or whatever)

- think about increasing the number of presenters when there are more submissions than spaces available.

- show common courtesy and inform people 'Hey, sorry, we didn't choose your topic blah blah' instead of just posting the agenda. I realize that is an industry wide problem, but it's a basic point of professionalism.

Sounds like it was a great event. Since I ended up with a scheduling conflict, it's just as well I wasn't presenting.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: jdn; 6/3/2009 6:48 PM; Having said all that, of course, I obviously shouldn't have been flippant/obnoxious about the guys who set up the Code Camp.

I don't believe i've met the guys from the other group, but as anyone who has met Sergio and Derik knows, they are great guys, and from all accounts, the Code Camp was a tremendous success. They put it together and should be commended for their efforts.

My bad for being a dickhead about it. Not likely to change, but I will try to be a bit more careful about the offhand remarks. My apologies to all of them.

# re: Continuing Slide toward the Dark Side: Sergio Pereira; 6/3/2009 8:02 PM; Thanks for the good feedback, we hope to take care of that and many other issues next time we do this again.
From my part, apologies accepted. I've never been the one that cultivates hard feelings anyway.

Please add 4 and 7 and type the answer here:

Enter the code shown above:

Archives

Post Categories

Stuff

BlogCoward