Talk:List of unit testing frameworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of unit testing frameworks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 xUnit 2 Layout: Tables 3 Expansion 4 Regarding language dialects

[edit] xUnit

What is the difference between this article and the xUnit article? -- nolandda

Not all of these frameworks are xUnit. --Chris Pickett 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout: Tables

I converted (then IP) the bullet-list page to a big number of small tables. The point was that then you have a TOC and can click on your language. Could we discuss the pros and cons of One-big-table versus Many-small-tables? --User77764 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for many small tables is that I want to introduce columns to the C++ table which don't make sense anywhere else. --User77764 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And to be able to do this, I will revert to the many tables version. This is no final decision of course. --User77764 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another idea: There are many languages with only one framework listed. Maybe combine them all into a single table while those languages with multiple entries get tables of their own? --User77764 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That will make it annoying if and when new frameworks crop up, it should be all the same style I think. So many smaller tables is fine, if somewhat more cumbersome to maintain when adding a new category to each table. I was thinking one big table for the columns that can be common between languages, and smaller tables for the columns particular to a language, but then you have to maintain the list of frameworks in two places. So many smaller tables then, but add the xUnit column to all of them. I wish table-editing was wysiwyg, would make life easier. --Chris Pickett 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we go for one table per language... maybe add all columns that are explained at the top to all tables? --User77764 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure... and it seems better if the common columns in each table go before the language-specific ones, with the exception of Remarks. --Chris Pickett 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ack. --User77764 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

The list needs information. White boxes mean: We do not know. Anybody with sufficient knowledge please help out. Also, more columns should be added where appropriate. --User77764 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding language dialects

The language list surely is too long. Recently an entry for Symbian was added. Now this is clearly NO language, is it? Afaik, they use C++ in some flavor. Anyways, they don't deserve an own entry. Where to place such candidates? --User77764 17:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that one either. You could merge it with C++, but is it really a C++ framework? What other ones did you want to merge? Chris Pickett 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Transact-SQL and SQL? I don't know, most of the languages are unknown to me... (but I know more than one of them ;-) ) --User77764 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it. If you can find an example where compilers for either one will happily accept the other, then sure, merge to the same language. Chris Pickett 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think the list (of languages!) is too long. But then, the "article" lacks in more important areas, for sure. --User77764 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)