For whatever it's worth, I think the programming language community most oriented around test driven development is Ruby at this time, so if that is important to one's development approach, Ruby and Rails are worth a look.
Jamal On 2/13/2011 2:42 PM, Kerneels Roos wrote:
Thanks Dave, It is not so nice to come in afterwards and write tests for classes, which I'm doing now to ensure everything works right, but I can imagine a TDD approach could work very well indeed. As I understand it, TDD is also core to XP (extreme programming). For anything new I'm going to write tests before coding and also look into TDD more formally. Once you know how to code and design algorithms one should invest in some solid software engineering techniques and get a good methodology to follow. I strongly believe it will save tons of time and produce far better software if the project is anything larger than a simple CRUD system. I can't decide if the book "The Art of Unit Testing" is worth the $24 or not though :-) Regards On 2/13/2011 8:55 AM, Dave wrote:The general approach advocated by some is that of Test Driven Development. I have to say that whatever I've written using this approach has been far more robust when it comes to quality. The .Net unit test frameworks of which NUnit is only one, all have lots in common. Visual Studio comes with a unit test framework as well and integrates the running of tests within VS itself. The actual tool chosen is a personal choice -- if you like integration with VS for example or something independent. What tool's UI do you like, etc. Basically, they all use .Net attributes to "markup" methods and classes with metadata; think test name, test description, run time, category, etc. Then, at runtime, the runner just via reflection grabs all of the tests and invokes them programmatically. As for TDD, if you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend looking it up. Essentially, you write tests before actually even implementing anything. The tests serve as a statement of what you expect to be true. This obviously requires that you iron out what your class interface should look like; this might not be the style you're used to and something C++ developers are more acustomed to. However, as you go along, you already have a set of validation tests that verify that your stuff actually works without doing the tedious pattern of compile, run, manually check if it works, and rinse/repeat. On 2/11/11, Jacques Bosch<jfbosch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I've had good success with NUnit. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Kerneels Roos<kerneels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi, I've investigated NUnit and it'the GUI is quite accessible with JFW. Also interested in MBUnit / Galeo but haven't tested the GUI yet. Unit testing seems like a brilliant way to develop better code and keep it working while changing things. Advantage of NUnit is that the syntax is XUnit compatible, so what you learn there directly applies to a host of other unit test frameworks and languages. The more advanced Galeo / MBUnit is also XUnit compatible should you need more power later on. Could anyone recommend a good book on this topic / some comments of your own experience? I hope unit testing isn't just an accademic ideal but actually something that can be done economically. I found this e-book (PDF, epub and mobiM): http://www.manning.com/osherove/ but it's from 2009 and doesn't seem to cover Galeo. Any comments most welcome! Regards, Kerneels -- Kerneels Roos Cell: +27 (0)82 309 1998 Skype: cornelis.roos "There are only two kinds of programming languages in the world; those everyone complains about, and those nobody uses." __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind-- Jacques Bosch Software Architecture and Development Independent Contractor Cell: +27 824711807 Fax: +27 86 504 4726 E-Mail: jfbosch@xxxxxxxxx__________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
__________View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
