Talk:Behavior-driven development

Lack of information

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A team should use the same verbiage for the same things - from the database to the view to the verbal conversations - following their client's lead with domain-specific jargon. That is ubiquitous language, and storytests are just one layer that should reinforce this vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.108.199 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.187.18 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

answered in the current version - it's TDD written in client-readable prose. See "literate programming" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.108.199 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as "Behavior-driven development"?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for a week and appears to be in line with WP:CAPS, WP:HYPHEN and other related articles. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior Driven Development → Behavior-driven development – Test-driven development has set a precedent (I think). Other articles in Category:Software development philosophies that are not book titles follow WP:LOWERCASE. This page should follow that form and be named Behavior-driven development. --DavidBiesack (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.