I think BDD has very bad reputation because people associate it with test automation. And it is actually pretty terrible tool to teschnicall describe tests.
What BDD is good at, is defining project requirments, it is a thinking tool. Especially if used correctly, with examples and etc. It is a business not engineering tool.
I think BDD has very bad reputation because people associate it with test automation.
I think BDD has a terrible reputation because people associate it with Cucumber/Gherkin! And honestly, if that's all they've experienced, I understand and sympathize.
On the other hand, people seem happy with RSpec, Jest, Spek, Scalatest, and other spec-style BDD frameworks. Those still nudge people into thinking about testing use instead of implementation, which is the real value in BDD.
Comments
I think BDD has very bad reputation because people associate it with test automation. And it is actually pretty terrible tool to teschnicall describe tests.
What BDD is good at, is defining project requirments, it is a thinking tool. Especially if used correctly, with examples and etc. It is a business not engineering tool.
I think BDD has a terrible reputation because people associate it with Cucumber/Gherkin! And honestly, if that's all they've experienced, I understand and sympathize.
On the other hand, people seem happy with RSpec, Jest, Spek, Scalatest, and other spec-style BDD frameworks. Those still nudge people into thinking about testing use instead of implementation, which is the real value in BDD.