I don't have a problem with using TDD *and* type-safety to the full extent of usefulness, but the lifecycle/process isn't what TDD experts would call proper TDD.

I do use HSpec, very happily. The author has done a truly excellent job with it.

Process is something like:

write types, validate types

-> fill holes, validate terms against types

-> compose functions to see if results are sane, go back to 1st or 2nd step if not.

-> Are there useful invariants QuickCheck can express? Write those first. Repeat cycle as needed.

-> Decide on meaningful but compact functional/integration tests, repeat cycle as needed.

Example HSpec tests (just functional/integration): http://github.com/bitemyapp/bloodhound/

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Gautier DI FOLCO <gautier.difolco@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I'm a huge fan of TDD (Test-Driven Development) et I used to use tools such as RSpec (Ruby). So naturally, I looked to HSpec, but it seems not idiomatic in Haskell.
I have a bunch of questions:
- Do you do TDD?
- Which tools do you use?
- Is doctest "better" (in some senses) than HSpec? Why?
- Are HSpec and Doctest complementary? If so, in which case do you use one or another?
- Is there some Haskell-specific good practices do to TDD?

Thanks in advance for your lights.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe