On 27 May 2011 19:41, Hernan Wilkinson <
hernan.wilkinson@10pines.com> wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
> �I completely agree with Niall... I participated in the development of a
> systems, in VASmalltalk & GemStone, that has 23.000 tests that run in 7
> minutes and we hardly needed to use mocks... we mostly needed to
> have�polymorphic�objets with the real ones and sometimes we used the same
> test to do it and sometimes we just used the real ones that were created
> using resources... I prefer to use real objects instead of mocks or test
> doubles because when using test doubles (which includes mocks) you are not
> testing the real thing, so for example, I do not use test doubles for
> objects that are part of the system I'm�writing�but only for objects outside
> the system.
> �My experience of teaching/coaching TDD shows that test doubles are more
> important due to its difficulty of using, in statically typed languages,
> which makes sense because the coupling between the "client" object and the
> "server" object is the variable's type instead of only the messages that are
> sent.
> �I also�believe�that TDD is popular in Smalltalk... why do you think it is
> not?
> �Bye!
> �Hernan.
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Niall Ross <
nfr@bigwig.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dennis,
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Sounds interesting.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> You remark
>>
>> > Apparently, Mocks technique is not popular tool among Smalltalkers.
>>
>> and Steve, noting that, says
>>
>>>
>>> I hadn't realised that the ST world was behind in this respect.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> These features may sometimes make people less thorough in setting up a
>> full mocks framework for their application's tests.
>>
>>
>>>> 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).
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>>>> I have been using TDD and
>>>> 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
>>>> Smalltalkers. �... I was most productive in Smalltalk when I used
>>>> �"classic TDD" and mocks in conjunction.
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>> � � � � � �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
>
>
>
> --
> Hern�n Wilkinson
> Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching
> Mobile:
+54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207
> email: hernan.wilkinson@10Pines.com
> site:�
http://www.10Pines.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
>
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
>
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
>
>