A specification language is desirable. (Test cases are special cases of
specifications. Test-driven development is a revival of the waterfall
process.) For specifying interactions (computer-computer or
computer-human), I recommend "live sequence charts" of David Harel, or
generally any one base
My problem with cucumber is not the idea of a high-level DSL for tests. Au
contraire--I think this is a perfect place for a little language. I could
easily see a similar tool being useful for Haskell.
Rather, my issue is with the syntax. Not gherkin in particular but rather
languages that try to l
Honestly, I've not. Worth looking at, probably.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Have you tried AppleScript? I wouldn't say it's pleasant to use, but it's
> easy to read.
>
>
> On Thursday, September 12, 2013, David Thomas wrote:
>
>> I've long been interested in a script
I just want to chime in to defend Cucumber, which I use in Ruby at my day
job. I see a lot of people put up the strawman that it can only be used as
a way for business people to write acceptance tests. That idea is
questionable and I've never worked at a company big enough to require that,
or with
Have you tried AppleScript? I wouldn't say it's pleasant to use, but it's
easy to read.
On Thursday, September 12, 2013, David Thomas wrote:
> I've long been interested in a scripting language designed to be spoken.
> Not interested enough to go about making it happen... but the idea is
> fascina
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM, David Thomas wrote:
> I've long been interested in a scripting language designed to be spoken.
> Not interested enough to go about making it happen... but the idea is
> fascinating and possibly useful.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_(programming_langua
I've long been interested in a scripting language designed to be spoken.
Not interested enough to go about making it happen... but the idea is
fascinating and possibly useful.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Andreas Abel wrote:
> **
>
> +1
>
> Cucumber seems to be great if you mainly want to re
+1
Cucumber seems to be great if you mainly want to read your code
over the telephone, distribute it via national radio broadcast, or
dictate it to your secretary or your voice recognition software. You can
program thus without having to use you fingers. You can lie on your back
on your sofa,
This might do for businesses, but clearly not adequate if we want
Haskell/Cucumber (ever) to be suitable for use in government.
Here I’d like to suggest a more rigorous approach, which hopefully will be
considered for implementation instead of the original proposal.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:20:26 +0400, Thiago Negri wrote:
I hope these jokes do not cause people to be afraid to post new ideas.
Agreed. I would also like to clarify that my message was much more a joke
on
the incomprehensibility of legal acts than on the original proposal.
By the way, I am
On 09/10/2013 09:30 AM, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
Impressed by the productivity of my Ruby-writing friends, I have
recently come across Cucumber: http://cukes.info
It is a great tool for specifying tests and programs in natural
language, and especially easy to learn for beginners.
I propose that
I hope these jokes do not cause people to be afraid to post new ideas.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
"Gherkin is the language that Cucumber understands. It is a Business
Readable, Domain Specific Language that lets you describe software’s
behaviour without detailing how that behaviour is implemented." [1]
The example detailed how foldl is implemented.
Also, as it is intended to be a DSL for *bus
That was done around 100 years ago with COBOL.
2013/9/10 Vo Minh Thu
> The syntax is actually used by non-technical people to write tests.
> Using it to write Haskell code is a joke. (Using it for business
> specification is not, even if for technical people this seems
> overkill.)
>
> Thu
>
>
The syntax is actually used by non-technical people to write tests.
Using it to write Haskell code is a joke. (Using it for business
specification is not, even if for technical people this seems
overkill.)
Thu
2013/9/10 Ian Ross :
> Me too, but I wasn't brave enough to say so after people seemed
I'll admit, I also thought it was a joke.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ian Ross wrote:
> Me too, but I wasn't brave enough to say so after people seemed to be
> taking it seriously...
>
>
> On 10 September 2013 13:33, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
>
>> * John Wiegley [2013-09-10 04:48:36-0500]
>
Me too, but I wasn't brave enough to say so after people seemed to be
taking it seriously...
On 10 September 2013 13:33, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
> * John Wiegley [2013-09-10 04:48:36-0500]
> > > Niklas Hambüchen writes:
> >
> > > Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read
* John Wiegley [2013-09-10 04:48:36-0500]
> > Niklas Hambüchen writes:
>
> > Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read
>
> concise |kənˈsīs|, adj.
>
> giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but
> comprehensive.
>
> Compare:
>
> Sce
On Sep 10, 2013 3:25 PM, "AlanKim Zimmerman" wrote:
>
> I think the normal motivation for cucumber syntax is that it is a way to
communicate requirements with non-technical people.
+1
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM, John Wiegley
wrote:
>>
>> > Niklas Hambüchen writes:
>>
>> > Code w
To be exact, the syntax is Gherkin not cucumber.
https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber/wiki/Gherkin
And, there's already a library to run specs written in Gherkin.
https://github.com/marcotmarcot/chuchu
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> This is completely irrelevant, but
This is completely irrelevant, but the .chs extension is
already taken by the c2hs tool.
Cheers,
Edward
Excerpts from Niklas Hambüchen's message of Tue Sep 10 00:30:41 -0700 2013:
> Impressed by the productivity of my Ruby-writing friends, I have
> recently come across Cucumber: http://cukes.info
I think the normal motivation for cucumber syntax is that it is a way to
communicate requirements with non-technical people.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM, John Wiegley wrote:
> > Niklas Hambüchen writes:
>
> > Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read
>
> concise
> Niklas Hambüchen writes:
> Code written in cucumber syntax is concise and easy to read
concise |kənˈsīs|, adj.
giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but
comprehensive.
Compare:
Scenario: Defining the function foldl
Given I want do define fol
Impressed by the productivity of my Ruby-writing friends, I have
recently come across Cucumber: http://cukes.info
It is a great tool for specifying tests and programs in natural
language, and especially easy to learn for beginners.
I propose that we add a Cucumber syntax for Haskell, with the ex
24 matches
Mail list logo
