Comments on: Unit testing in Java vs. Smalltalk http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk What happens at LShift Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:57:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: tonyg http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-86144 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:46:47 +0000 http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-86144 <p>Neil, it sounds like Eclipse is moving in the right direction. It's a pity that lighter tools don't work the same way.</p> <p>Give the Eclipse project another couple of years, and we'll have a lovely greenspunned Strongtalk-a-like :-)</p> Neil, it sounds like Eclipse is moving in the right direction. It’s a pity that lighter tools don’t work the same way.

Give the Eclipse project another couple of years, and we’ll have a lovely greenspunned Strongtalk-a-like :-)

]]> by: tonyg http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-86143 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:45:09 +0000 http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-86143 <p>Matthew, I can see how interfaces remove some of the burden, but how would mock objects help? Also, all this hassle just to stop the compiler from simple-mindedly complaining about something I know I haven't gotten around to yet... even using interfaces doesn't fix the ergonomics of the system.</p> Matthew, I can see how interfaces remove some of the burden, but how would mock objects help? Also, all this hassle just to stop the compiler from simple-mindedly complaining about something I know I haven’t gotten around to yet… even using interfaces doesn’t fix the ergonomics of the system.

]]> by: matthew http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-86140 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:44:18 +0000 http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-86140 <p>I think you may want JMockObjects. Also, if you always write to interfaces rather than classes then this makes life easier too.</p> <p>Of course, really the type system should just carry around proofs and logical discriptions of what individual functions actually do and should know how these compose together.</p> I think you may want JMockObjects. Also, if you always write to interfaces rather than classes then this makes life easier too.

Of course, really the type system should just carry around proofs and logical discriptions of what individual functions actually do and should know how these compose together.

]]> by: Neil http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-85858 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:13:43 +0000 http://www.lshift.net/blog/2008/02/22/unit-testing-in-java-vs-smalltalk#comment-85858 <p>Eclipse "compiles away" compile errors as runtime exceptions so running the tests inside Eclipse essentially gives you this for free.</p> Eclipse “compiles away” compile errors as runtime exceptions so running the tests inside Eclipse essentially gives you this for free.

]]>