Re: Test first as specification

"Robert C. Martin" <unclebob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:akkcf1d223tg2v6983f4nsmigirblqrht5@xxxxxxxxxx

> I completely disagree. Specifications are highly detailed declarative
> statements that do not include intent. Intent is always commentary.

Let me see if I got it right. Acording to you, specifications
do not include intent? So what are they for then? I mean,
the whole point of the specs is to communicate the intent,
isn't it?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Test first as specification
    ... Specifications are highly detailed declarative ... Intent is always commentary. ... This is for Lurker, and also for Daniel Parker and Dmitry Kazakov: ... tests that attempt to show that IMPL conforms to SPEC. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Explain this Technique -- new() followed by an anonymous class declaration
    ... >are supposed to be only specifications, ... English is ALWAYS ambiguous to some ... annotated list of legal and illegal Java identifiers to illustrate the ... Which would you read to learn the author's intent? ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: Test first as specification
    ... Specifications are highly detailed declarative ... Intent is always commentary. ... the point of a spec is to communicate desired behavior. ... "The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Test first as specification
    ... >> I completely disagree. ... Specifications are highly detailed declarative ... Intent is always commentary. ... project is to communicate the client's intent into an application. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: UK but really China
    ... It was not my intent to state that people ... show a "turn of phrase" was being used. ... I don't see a slanging match here. ... I am sorry but I have to disagree. ...
    (uk.people.consumers.ebay)