I was using screw-unit as my unit testing framework - I originally tried to setup JSTestDriver but I was having problems getting that to work so in the interests of not shaving the yak I decided to go with something I already know how to use. I don’t think I quite get the idea of the 'describe' and 'it' blocks which I believe are inspired by Rspec. I like the idea of describing the behaviour of an object for the different contexts in which it’s used but I found myself putting all my examples/tests in the same describe block without realising! I went back and tried to find the different contexts but the only obvious distinction I noticed was that some tests seemed to be covering fairly basic bowling combinations while others were covering specific types of games:

At one stage I was making use of the Array 'splice' function to get an array with an element removed and I had expected that I would be returned a new array with those elements removed. In actual fact that function mutates the original array so if we’re going to do anything using 'splice' then it seems like we need to get a copy of the original array by using 'slice' otherwise we may end up with some quite unexpected behaviour later on in the program. The other thing I found strange is that 'splice' returns the elements that have been removed from the array rather than the newly mutated array. To get an array with the first element removed we’d do something like this: _~javascript function removeFirstItemFrom(theArray) { var copy = theArray.slice(0); copy.splice(0, 1); return copy; } var anArray = [1,2,3,4,5]; var anArrayWithFirstItemRemoved = removeFirstItemFrom(anArray); _~ After my time playing around with functional approaches to programming it’s quite strange to see APIs which mutate values and don’t return the results that I’d expect them to. Interesting though.

Since a lot of the test setup involved rolling gutter balls I had a lot of calls to 'bowlingGame.roll(0)' which was making the test quite convoluted and not adding much value. I wrote a function to extend 'Number' so that I could use a Ruby style '10.times' syntax: _~javascript Number.prototype.times = function(f) { for(var i=0; i < this; ++i) { f(); } return this; }; _~ When I tried to use this function like this: _~javascript 10.times(function() { bowlingGame.roll(0); }); _~ I kept getting the following error: _~text SyntaxError: missing ; before statement _~ I couldn’t work out what I was doing wrong but skim pointed out that in Javascript we need to wrap number literals in parentheses in order to call functions on them: _~javascript (10).times(function() { bowlingGame.roll(0); }); _~ works much better! I wrote a couple of other general use functions and one thing which I’m not sure about is whether or not I should do validation on the input parameters or is it down to the user of the function to use it correctly? I’m more used to static languages where it would be more difficult to pass in an unexpected value so I’m not sure what the normal approach would be in a dynamic language.

I took quite a lot of ideas from the way Brett Schuchert solved the problem in Ruby. In particular I really like the way that he’s broken down the problem into smaller and smaller functions which all do only one thing. It’s quite easy to end up writing really complicated functions which are difficult to understand so it was good to see that it is possible to keep it this simple. It would be quite interesting to see how this type of solution evolved.

This wasn’t my most incremental bit of coding ever - I found that some of the examples I introduced e.g. scoring a strike often resulted in quite a lot of code needing to change to make the test pass. My current thinking is that for this problem we perhaps need to have some idea of the way that we want the code to evolve before we start writing our solution. A solution doesn’t just evolve in front of us when we add in the next test. Either that or I’m not taking steps which are small enough to allow that evolution to happen.