[Haskell-cafe] HSpec vs Doctest for TDD
alois.cochard at gmail.com
Thu Jun 26 12:37:11 UTC 2014
Interesting, It's sounds like your definition of `TDD` is what is my
definition of `solving problem`.
My point was that I don't want to write test for a grammar that I might
realize during further design that is wrong, this would be just complete
wasted effort... Instead I just test as a way to tryout my DSL... but
really to me it does *not* relate to TDD... because I can do the same with
just a REPL and the history of it...
I wish that definition you use was the same understood by the industry, but
it is not the way it was presented to me when I discussed with TDD
enthusiast in the past... maybe things changed.
On 25 June 2014 22:44, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> On 26/06/2014, at 2:51 AM, Alois Cochard wrote:
> > For me TDD is highly overrated, and is abused as a buzz word by
> > In the context of writing a DSL, how one can start by the test? It's
> just impossible...
> I'm puzzled by this.
> You have some sort of fuzzy idea for a DSL.
> You're not sure exactly what it's going to look like,
> but you have a fair idea of what you want to be able
> to do with it.
> So you write some code in your DSL, making it up as
> you go. As you do this. you keep changing your mind
> about what's a nice way to say things, and you go back
> and revise earlier sketches.
> After a few hours to a few days, you now have some
> examples of things you'd like to be able to handle,
> and can start mining them for a a grammar and you
> can write some code to support them.
> And guess what, you have written your DSL tests first,
> because the examples you needed to do the *design*
> work are precisely test cases that your code should
> My understanding of the history is that this is
> pretty much what happened when Erlang was designed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe