coding standard gold

[wilzbach]

npm run browser-build
npm test
inline doc -> README.md
tests
compatibility
jsdoc3
snippets

[wilzbach]

in work: http://edu.biojs.net/series/101/70_gold_standard.html

[mhelvens]

I'm now looking at the current 'gold standard' list. I'm surprised that it prescribes so many specific tools. For example, could the gold ribbon not be earned by a project that uses:

• Grunt rather than Gulp, or
• Jasmine rather than Mocha, or
• Drone rather than Travis, or
• JsLint rather than JsHint, or
• HTML or ThreeJS rather than D3?

These specific choices do not seem, to me, marks of quality, but of personal preference or convenience. What do I think should be part of the gold standard? I'll name a few things that come to mind:

• user documentation,
• API documentation (extra points if it is generated from the code itself),
• usage examples,
• automated unit tests with high code coverage,
• automated integration tests,
• tool-enforced code-consistency (e.g. jslint/hint/etc.),
• publicly visible continuous integration,
• an npm presence.

These seem, to me, objective standards of quality. Note that my only concession to a specific tool is npm. That's just because having every BioJS component in the same system helps interoperability, and does not preclude the package from also being listed in, e.g., Bower.

[timruffles]

👍