<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mat Schaffer - Latest Comments in Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://matschaffer.disqus.com/harsh_opinions_on_javascript_testing/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:55:32 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-17018594</link><description>&lt;p&gt;For sure man, I see the value in that, it is a perfectly valid argument. Which is why I support literal JS specs as well (you can even use a combination of each if you want), but yeah a bigger team would not benefit much from the grammar. I work solo so thats where my rage with JS literals got me started with the grammar lol&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TJ Holowaychuk</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:55:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-17016185</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the support! I see the cool factor but "getting the hang of it" would become a speed-bump when trying to introduce the tool to the rest of my team (~40 devs total). And the specs won't be worth much if I'm the only one using them. I'll hit you up in IRC once I get started for sure.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mat Schaffer</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:49:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-17015909</link><description>&lt;p&gt;hell even if you do not like snake-case 2.x partially implements interchangeable DSLs (3.x will top this off) so you can have camel-case galore. The grammar can be summed up really quickly, this slideshow might be worth checking out, speeds up testing once you get the hang of it :) &lt;a href="http://slidechop.com/presentations/68/slides" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://slidechop.com/presentations/68/slides"&gt;http://slidechop.com/presen...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TJ Holowaychuk</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:38:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-17014697</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Sounds good! not much is forced upon the user though. Check out the readme / site or drop by the #jspec IRC channel if you need any help. People seem to jump to conclusions about how things have to be done with JSpec, which are never true, its very extensible / customizable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The project templates for example are simply a starting point, the structure does not have to be that way at all. 3.x is going to ship with a bunch of new features, hopefully timed together with my Ruby TestSwarm implementation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Besides if you find there is something missing, or blocking your way drop an issue on Github and I will check it out :)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TJ Holowaychuk</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:31:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-17014123</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for chiming in TJ! I think JSpec will be the next tool I look at for testing. The features definitely look good, I just worry that a number of your opinions won't mesh with the projects I need to test. We'll see how flexible it is once I start digging in.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mat Schaffer</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:21:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-16913003</link><description>&lt;p&gt;JSpec can be used without the grammar. The syntax is very similar to Screw.Unit, however JSpec has far more features, and is actively developed / tested by the community.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TJ Holowaychuk</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:34:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-15465653</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Right on. Thanks for the check. I too often forget to revisit the YUI suite since I initially used it in 2005 when it only had a small handful of tools. Maybe I'll do another post with that and a deeper dive into JSpec. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mat Schaffer</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:21:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Harsh opinions on JavaScript testing</title><link>http://matschaffer.com/2009/08/hars-opinions-on-javascript-testing/#comment-15430586</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I've used YUI Test a bit, seems decent: &lt;a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/yuitest" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/yuitest"&gt;http://developer.yahoo.com/...&lt;/a&gt;, but I haven't worked with any of these others, so I can't compare.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TTop</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:02:09 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>