Content deleted Content added
Erkan Yilmaz (talk | contribs) →Dave Astels: unsigned |
|||
Line 11:
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. {{unsigned|24.6.102.150|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?
--[[User:Frank Hileman|Frank Hileman]] 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
| |||