Hi Dennis,
Dear Dennis,Sounds interesting.
> I'd like to explore interest to Mock Object in Smalltalk society. I'm
> currently working on the topic, preparing a paper and presentation
> targeting at ESUG 2011.
Tim Mackinnon mentions mock objects in his talk 'Expressive Testing and Code for Free' at ESUG 2007 (report reachable from http://www.esug.org/Conferences).
Steve Freeman (via Joseph Pelrine) wrote:
You should talk to Tim, he wrote a mocks library in about 3 classes (which is what it should take). He also has some interesting experience from the Kapital project that doesn't have unit tests.
You remarkand Steve, noting that, says
> Apparently, Mocks technique is not popular tool among Smalltalkers.
I note that one or two who replied to your earlier post said they had not needed Mocks, or found them brittle, but I don't think the technique is _unpopular_ in Smalltalk. �My own take is
I hadn't realised that the ST world was behind in this respect.
1) Smalltalk's power means mocks are not needed as often. �Many a time, you can get at what you need directly, or by use method wrappers to make the real objects (or the routes to them) act momentarily as mocks.
Here, I may be saying the same as you:2) Another dynamic language feature is that you can more easily structure tests so the same test can be run against both the mock and the real object when the latter is available. �(The approach is the same as in my talk "eXtreme UI Testing" at Smalltalk Solutions 2007, also reachable from the http://www.esug.org/Conferences page.)
Yes, Smalltalk is great language and it has great tools.
This damps some aspects of the problems TDD and Mocks address, but for
sure does not remove them totally.
These features may sometimes make people less thorough in setting up a full mocks framework for their application's tests.I don't think TDD is in the least unpopular or unrespected in Smalltalk. �However I'm sure you are right when you say it "is not as widely used as it could and should be", though I'd be surprised if that were more true of Smalltalk than of other languages.
It even seems (to me), TDD is not as widely used as it could and should
be (despite the fact it was born in Smalltalk).
If your talk uses your experience to illuminate why what we "could and should be" doing was "sometimes ... hard ... even giving it up", but "most productive", that might be very useful to others.I have been using TDD andSmalltalkers. �... I was most productive in Smalltalk when I used
Mocks for many years in different projects with Smalltalk and other
languages. Sometimes it was hard, sometimes I was even giving it up, but
by now I think I have sufficient experience to state that TDD in general
and Mock Objects specifically do deserve (at least) more attention by
�"classic TDD" and mocks in conjunction.
� � � � � �Yours faithfully
� � � � � � � � �Niall Ross
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org