Hi Sean. 2016-10-31 14:23 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]>:
> p.s. although I don't have a ton of experience with Mocketry, when I > shopped > around for a mock framework, I remember strongly preferring BabyMock (which > I hacked together with Phexample into BabyPhexample; so you get stacked > tests, "should" expectations, and mocks). Maybe in another thread, Denis > might explain why one might prefer Mocketry? > You can look at features here: http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based on normal messages. But BabyMock implements really nice visualization of objects interaction which probably was main goal for authors. It could be done for Mocketry but with ready to use tools like Roassal. BabyMock implements all visualization by itself.
