<wantansoup>
I'm just curious: what do you think about Spectator ( https://gitlab.com/arctic-fox/spectator ). It has the *modern* RSpec syntax instead the old one. I would love to see it as a default in Amber to get it more in line with the ruby ecosystems (and it reads better in my opinion but that's probably just a matter of taste).
<wantansoup>
And is there any description how to replace webpack with something else?
<FromGitter>
<Blacksmoke16> imo id be against it, but its not really my decision
<FromGitter>
<Blacksmoke16> it would just make others wanting to contribute to have to learn yet another library just to write tests
<wantansoup>
Isn't this always the case? I mean: it is always necessary to read about context, helpers and test structures in a particular project anyway. To remember a spec-syntax is probably much easier than remembering the structures and classes in a framework like Amber. Also for people from the Ruby world it is most probably even *easier* to read and write the Spectator syntax because RSpec deprecated the old syntax (that Crystal's Spec
<wantansoup>
uses) in 2014. I'm also not someone who decides here but I'm curious about the opinions.
<FromGitter>
<Blacksmoke16> would have to be a need, would be a waste of time to move *all* amber's specs to some other library just because
<wantansoup>
IMHO although it would be nice, it wouldn't even be necessary to move all at once because the syntax is encapsulated within a `Spectator.describe` block anyway.
waheedi has quit [Quit: waheedi]
<robacarp>
I think Amber is probably best served by staying with the simple, easy, crystal default.
<robacarp>
For my own projects, I use the crystal version of minitest, because I far prefer the syntax and simplicity of the suite compared to any alternatives
<robacarp>
the crystal default is pretty good, however