Why We Refactored JUnit 192
Bill Venners writes "In this article, three programmers tell the story of how their frustration with JUnit's API led to the creation of Artima SuiteRunner, a free, open source test toolkit and JUnit runner. These programmers simply wanted to create a small add-on tool to JUnit, but found JUnit's design non-intuitive and API documention poor. After spending time reading through JUnit's source code and attempting to guess at the API contracts, they gave up and rewrote it."
In Soviet Russia... (Score:-1, Funny)
I wish... (Score:5, Funny)
hrm.... (Score:5, Funny)
xao
Re:I wish... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wish... (Score:3, Funny)
Not as sexy, but... oh, fuck it. This post sucks ass.
But.. (Score:0, Funny)
Re: Intuitive (Score:5, Funny)
> Recursion is intuitive but...
You've obviously never tried to explain recursion to a group of average co-workers.
Re:Origins of XP (Score:3, Funny)
In order to write good (stable, maintainable, extendible, generic, efficient,
If the code is well written, there's few need
for writing tests (except for sophisticated algorithms), almost no need for refactoring (except for really simple ones like moving/renaming), redesign or debugging.
Unfortunately good OO design is a hard to learn skill and I haven't seen a good book on this yet.
Re:genericity in testing (Score:5, Funny)
nonono ... you correct the test so the code passes ...