Really? Is it perhaps because of those libraries that do their best to make test call sites look like weird pseudo-English. Stuff like having a library function named it():
it(“should be confusing”, function() { ... })
it(“should be confusing”, function() { ... })
The only reason I see the usefulness of additional syntax just for tests is the case to have non-technical people writing tests. From my experience, this is a terrible idea.
YMMV, the BDD implementations I've seen so far did not convince me of its value to put it mildly.
Its not really about syntactical sugar, and more about being able to see the data the failed, and make the testing experience easy so that you can write tests with less effort
IMO, it only falls apart (and becomes such a nightmare) because of the imprecision of spoken & written word. Computers don't understand idioms, colloquialisms, and the like, and so non-technical staff are tricked into thinking a language/program can do more than it actually can do.