David is the Concordion expert. But here's how I see the Concordion advantage: when creating or discussing a story, your natural-language-speaking stakeholders (as opposed to your code-speaking stakeholders -- for example, English-speaking product owners, etc.) are not obligated to use a made-up DSL. Ever.
For them, it's plain ol' words of their choosing, with no rules or even any consistency. That is markedly different from Cucumber, et al., for which the story must always be expressed in the DSL in strict compliance with DSL rules.
For code-speakers, Concordion is much the same as Cucumber, et. al. They must design an API that connects the story words to the SUT. But they have a bit more flexiblity. As David says, there's no requirement for all story fixtures to use exactly the same API. Also, the API can change without changing the story words. Alxo, the DSL belongs strictly to code-speakers and can be managed like any other code artifact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment