Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
Cheers,
Andrew
(xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot of
tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for this and
am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
choosing a testing framework?
Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a test,
that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our soution we
have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
Not all use Rhino but many do.
Why such difference?
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille <shanecourtri...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot of
> tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for this and
> am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
>> Cheers,
>> Andrew
>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
> choosing a testing framework?
> Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a test,
> that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our soution we
> have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
> Not all use Rhino but many do.
> Why such difference?
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille
> <shanecourtri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot
>> of tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for this
>> and am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
>>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
>>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
>>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
>>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
>>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andrew
>>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
> > choosing a testing framework?
> > Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a
> test,
> > that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our soution
> we
> > have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
> > Not all use Rhino but many do.
> > Why such difference?
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille
> > <shanecourtri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot
> >> of tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for
> this
> >> and am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
> >>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
> >>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
> >>> For example, mocking a method (100 repeats):
> >>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
> >>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
> >>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Andrew
> >>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read 98,784 ms = 98 sec
> or is this an internationalization thing...where "," is "." in english?
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Caio Kinzel Filho <cai...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> its milisseconds, not seconds...
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
>> > choosing a testing framework?
>> > Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a
>> > test,
>> > that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our
>> > soution we
>> > have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
>> > Not all use Rhino but many do.
>> > Why such difference?
>> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille
>> > <shanecourtri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a
>> >> lot
>> >> of tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for
>> >> this
>> >> and am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
>> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
>> >>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
>> >>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
>> >>> For example, mocking a method (100 repeats):
>> >>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
>> >>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
>> >>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Andrew
>> >>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
> or is this an internationalization thing...where "," is "." in english?
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Caio Kinzel Filho <cai...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > its milisseconds, not seconds...
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
> > > choosing a testing framework?
> > > Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a
> > test,
> > > that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our soution
> > we
> > > have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
> > > Not all use Rhino but many do.
> > > Why such difference?
> > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille
> > > <shanecourtri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot
> > >> of tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for
> > this
> > >> and am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
> > >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
> > >>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
> > >>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
> > >>> For example, mocking a method (100 repeats):
> > >>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
> > >>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
> > >>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Andrew
> > >>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
Speed for us had become a first level concern because Rhino Mocks was adding
a considerable amount of time to our testing. Ayende added some caching
though and it went back to a manageable level.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
> choosing a testing framework?
> Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a test,
> that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our soution we
> have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
> Not all use Rhino but many do.
> Why such difference?
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille <
> shanecourtri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot
>> of tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for this
>> and am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
>>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
>>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
>>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
>>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
>>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andrew
>>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
Speed can't be considered only in context of running tests though. What
about speed to learn something new, time it takes to get an answer to a
question etc?
When you say "speed" is a first level concern are you only referring to the
speed of running tests?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Shane Courtrille <shanecourtri...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Speed for us had become a first level concern because Rhino Mocks was
> adding a considerable amount of time to our testing. Ayende added some
> caching though and it went back to a manageable level.
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Tim Barcz <timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Curious about speed in your tests, is the a first level concern when
>> choosing a testing framework?
>> Also, the test below says that for rhino 99,784 for 100 repeats of a test,
>> that's nearly 1 second per test which strikes me as slow. In our soution we
>> have 1150 tests that run in 20 seconds (about .00087 seconds per test).
>> Not all use Rhino but many do.
>> Why such difference?
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Shane Courtrille <
>> shanecourtri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It would be interesting to see comparison of a larger project with a lot
>>> of tests across various fixtures. I know Rhino has good caching for this
>>> and am interested in seeing how the others Moq compare.
>>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, andreister <andreis...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Hi, there's an update for Mocking Frameworks Compare (http://
>>>> code.google.com/p/mocking-frameworks-compare/) that allows you to
>>>> evaluate the performance of the frameworks.
>>>> For more details please refer to the project page, any suggestions are
>>>> welcome either here or there. And thanks everybody who was promoting
>>>> the project on their blogs and on twitter, etc!
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andrew
>>>> (xposted to Moq, Rhino, Typemock and NMock2 groups)
|
