On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <[email protected]> wrote: > It is my experience, and that of a large number > of other Rails developers, that using RSpec leads to more readable and > maintainable tests
They both do the exact same thing. The assertion syntax is nearly identical. RSpec just requires that you type a lot more to do the same job. > that focus more on behavior and less on > implementation. I don't see a single advantage of Test::Unit over RSpec > (except for the trivial one of its being included with Rails), I personally don't see the need to type all that extra RSpec syntax when I can type much simpler tests using Test::Unit. If RSpec were so great, why is it still not the default, even with Rails3? > whereas > RSpec has huge advantages over Test::Unit as I outlined above, as well > as probably being more beginner-friendly. What advantages? They both do the _exact same thing_, the main difference is the syntax, one is smaller one is bigger. I'll stick with the one that requires less work. -- Greg Donald destiney.com | gregdonald.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
