<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Behavior Driven Development is good</title>
	<link>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/</link>
	<description>Works on my machine</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/#comment-3064</link>
		<author>Tim</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/#comment-3064</guid>
					<description>Jon, I couldn't agree more with your points here. Just shifting the syntax of my tests to use the BDD wording is what pushed me over the top on gettng TDD through my head. Suddenly, what I was doing made so much sense, and it's just snowballed from there. Thankfully.

A word of caution, though is using the two terms totally interchangeably. Given the inability to get all the way into the code base of .Net, we'll likely never achieve full on BDD in our environment. This is Bellware's (via Steve Harman) BDD v. bdd argument. What we're doing here is bdd...and when we shift to writing Ruby we'll go for full on BDD. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon, I couldn&#8217;t agree more with your points here. Just shifting the syntax of my tests to use the BDD wording is what pushed me over the top on gettng TDD through my head. Suddenly, what I was doing made so much sense, and it&#8217;s just snowballed from there. Thankfully.</p>
<p>A word of caution, though is using the two terms totally interchangeably. Given the inability to get all the way into the code base of .Net, we&#8217;ll likely never achieve full on BDD in our environment. This is Bellware&#8217;s (via Steve Harman) BDD v. bdd argument. What we&#8217;re doing here is bdd&#8230;and when we shift to writing Ruby we&#8217;ll go for full on BDD. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Kohnen</title>
		<link>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/#comment-3065</link>
		<author>Justin Kohnen</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/#comment-3065</guid>
					<description>Jon-

Great post. It answered a few questions I had about BDD. Keep em coming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon-</p>
<p>Great post. It answered a few questions I had about BDD. Keep em coming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Kruger&#8217;s Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Unit Testing JavaScript - Introduction, JavaScript basics</title>
		<link>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/#comment-3120</link>
		<author>Jon Kruger&#8217;s Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Unit Testing JavaScript - Introduction, JavaScript basics</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jonkruger.com/blog/2008/07/25/why-behavior-driven-development-is-good/#comment-3120</guid>
					<description>[...] Why Behavior Driven Development is good [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Why Behavior Driven Development is good [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
