Denis Kudriashov wrote > 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.
Because they don't have symbols :). Ruby libraries often use symbols, last time I checked rspec mocks used it too. I think this is a matter of taste, it's not about being modern or not. I like thinking about mock objects as tools for describing inter-object protocols (the visualisation tries to emphasize this aspect). The communication protocol between the object under test and its peers (mocks) is expressed in a descriptive language (this language can be changed in BabyMock quite easily). A narrator object (this is called Protocol in BabyMock2) speaks in the third person to describe the message exchange between the object cluster. I don't like when expectations are set up in mocks directly any more, neither the should/should have notation. The GOOS book was a big influence on me at that time. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocks-are-missing-in-Pharo-from-thread-OSProcess-is-missing-tp4920574p4921004.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
