A while ago, Mike Clark wrote two blog postings on how to learn Ruby by writing tests (#1, #2). He explains that he wrote a test for each bit he learned about the language, over the years collecting a set of more than 200 tests which act as his personal knowledge base on the Ruby language:
Through trial and error they taught me how Ruby and its rich set of libraries really work. Not surprisingly, typing in code and running it makes you remember. Indeed, writing learning tests is a fun way to poke and prod any new language or API. And with every test you write you’re investing in an executable knowledge base.
Unfortunately I never tried this myself, but I like the idea. According to him, the benefit is twofold: The tests assist in acquiring and checking knowledge (by what he calls “asking Ruby”) and act as a knowledge base that manifests itself in code (and some documentation, where needed, I’d like to add).
Yet I am a little bit skeptical about “asking Ruby”. In his second posting, he suggests to “make a guess” in a particular case where he doesn’t know the result of a method invocation ("Rick".index('t')). Maybe I’m a bit hypersensitive here, but I have some reservations when it gets to using tests to find out how things (could or should) work. I’d think it would it be better to just look it up in a reference and write the test afterwards. The main reason is that using one test case (or a few) will give you one (or few) results, from which you will have to draw conclusions and generalize—the semantics of the index method in this case. What if your conclusions are wrong for some exceptional cases? Is it possible/feasible/desirable to write tests for each and every combination of parameters for a method? Why not trying a “read first” approach?
Nevertheless, the basic idea of using test cases for playing around with a language and collecting them as a reference is a nice idea. I’ll almost certainly try this the next time want to learn something about Ruby or a different language.
