2 ms·
After reading the Martin Fowler article you linked, your comment makes more sense, but I think the terminological distinctions Fowler makes are never going to b
by dkarl 9y ago
After reading the Martin Fowler article you linked, your comment makes more sense, but I think the terminological distinctions Fowler makes are never going to be widely adopted. People are going to keep using terms like "mock" and "stub" to broadly refer to any kind of test double, and it's disingenuous to assume otherwise.
- sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago> "People are going to keep using terms ... and it's disingenuous to assume otherwise." I'm sorry, I'm making an argument about how people should write tests, not what terms they'll use to describe it. :) I promise you that there is no disingenuity going on in my use of certain terminology to describe how I think it's best to write tests.