On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:22:39 +0000 (GMT) Bruce Adams <tortoise...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
BA> I would highly recommend cppunit as a unit test framework (based on the BA> xunit framework). I have very strong feelings about cppunit and would love dearly to use anything else but it. The best thing I can say about it is that it's better than using plain assert() but that's all. I could go into the details if it could be useful but the TL;DR version is that cppunit slavishly copies xUnit approach which is perhaps good for Java but in C++ there are much, much better -- and less verbose -- ways to do the same thing. BA> I should imagine the requirements for the boost testing framework are a BA> little different from those of normal libraries as they do more BA> template meta-programming than most normal human beings care for. You absolutely don't need to do any template meta-programming when using Boost.Test. FWIW it doesn't contain much of it internally neither (unlike CATCH) but as a user you really don't care about it. I'm genuinely curious: did you use Boost.Test before standardizing on cppunit? Because if you did, this would make you the first person I've ever heard about who preferred cppunit to Boost.Test after trying them both... Regards, VZ
pgpQ3iqC56btv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________ soci-users mailing list soci-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
