&quot;Pure&quot; TDD (or, BDD as it&#39;s reincarnation) makes tests a documentation automatically. Unfortunately, it&#39;s not easy to find TDD examples in Smalltalk�(nearly all, not just Pharo) code. Not to say, this approach would resolve a lot of other problems, if adopted just a bit wider��<div>

<br></div><div>Just complaining :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/31 Sean P. DeNigris <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:sean@clipperadams.com">sean@clipperadams.com</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

IMHO, the biggest room for improvement is with Tests. What I loved about BDD<br>
coming from Ruby is that it forces you to write tests from the perspective<br>
of a user of the API. Often in Squeak/Pharo, I go to the tests and still<br>
have no idea how to use the classes because the tests focus on<br>
implementation details.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
View this message in context: <a href="http://forum.world.st/The-Keys-to-the-Kingdom-tp3780556p3780712.html" target="_blank">http://forum.world.st/The-Keys-to-the-Kingdom-tp3780556p3780712.html</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Dennis Schetinin<br>
</div>