Re: BDD testing framework without dependencies

[Peter Aronoff <telemachus@...>]

steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose (like Sean) I don't appear to want these ;)  Look, I'm not
> knocking the idea but I like tests simple - they don't talk, unless they
> break. If they break I sort it out immediately. I don't gain any
> satisfaction in seeing pages of pretty green output with the occasional
> outbreak of red. The statistics which are ultimately meaningful are about
> _coverage_ and that's outside the scope of a test framework.

You don’t have to want these things. (You also don’t have to want your
tests run in a randomized order, which some test frameworks now do to help
increase test isolation.) But not wanting something or writing your own
minimal library is very different from saying “I don’t know why these
exist.” That seems either disingenuous or silly, and Adam’s example shows
why.

Imagine someone says, “I don’t understand why people write logging modules
since the print function already exists.” In all likelihood, the person
knows perfectly well *why* people write logging modules. The person just
wants an opportunity to say how much smarter they are than everyone else or
to judge everyone else’s work, etc. It’s not a good look.

P
-- 
We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's
requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful.
    Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System