Talk:Behavior-driven development: Difference between revisions
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
== How does this differ from TDD? == |
== How does this differ from TDD? == |
||
I'm not sure what the difference is between this and TDD. Can an expert add a section please [[Special:Contributions/86.54.187.18|86.54.187.18]] ([[User talk:86.54.187.18|talk]]) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
I'm not sure what the difference is between this and TDD. Can an expert add a section please [[Special:Contributions/86.54.187.18|86.54.187.18]] ([[User talk:86.54.187.18|talk]]) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
In fact it feels a bit like Dan North's take on TDD. |
Revision as of 16:33, 21 January 2009
So, I just made some massive changes to this. Mostly it's based on Dan's stuff, together with some things from my blog and the XP list on Yahoo, that I know he's agreed with. Will add some in-text citations as soon as I have time.
Hope this serves as a good base for further edits!
Featheredwings (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's talk about it before speedily deleting this article again... I'm sorry the first version was so information free... I just wanted to create a space to discuss the topic.
I've updated the article. Maybe the context message can go now.
The message can't go! The article, especially the beginning, is in terrible condition. --Mislav 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Dave Astels
Dave Astels also influences BDD. See his ideas and framework (at the moment in Ruby) in this video: Beyond Test Driven Development - Behaviour Driven Development ( 302 MB, 47:40 min ) Google TechTalks March 17, 2006 [1]. --Erkan Yilmaz 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm dubious about the accuracy of this article. Many of the things it says about BDD are things I thought were already true of test-driven development. Needs more cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.102.150 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 18 March 2007
What is the relationship with traditional specification as language (CLU, Eiffel)?
Consider representation invariants in a language such as CLU, or invariants in design-by-contract as in Eiffel.
These methods of development are similar to Behavior Driven Development. First one creates a specification for behavior, then the implementation of that behavior. The difference seems to be that there is less danger of destroying encapsulation when the specification is only for externally visible behavior. That is, the behavior of encapsulated details should be private, and should not require making those details public.
Has anyone written about the parallel between classic "executable specification" and Behavior Driven Development? Should something go in this article? --Frank Hileman 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ubiquitous Language
I'm not clear on the relationship to the ubiquitous language. Is BDD forming a ubiquitous language for testing or if you are practicing DDD with BDD is the ubiquitous language used in the tests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.217.214 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How does this differ from TDD?
I'm not sure what the difference is between this and TDD. Can an expert add a section please 86.54.187.18 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) In fact it feels a bit like Dan North's take on TDD.